Category:

Captured WV PSC Will Continue to Increase Utility Rates Like a Rubber Stamp

6/28/2015

The Beckley Register-Herald published a spot on editorial last week regarding the captive West Virginia PSC's continual rubber stamping of utility rate increases.

CHA-CHING!

The editorial lambasted the PSC for not even bothering to act like they care to listen to public commentary.

At a hearing last week in Beckley, one citizen clearly believed the PSC acts more as a rubber stamp for the utilities than an advocate for the people. His notion was not hindered by a PSC staffer who was perceived to be texting or playing with her phone throughout the meeting.

The editorial points out that at some point, the continued advancement of utility bill increases are going to meet the immovable object of consumer ability to pay.

In the past, the PSC has shown little concern about consumers, except to scam them with "consumer rate relief bonds" designed to simply hide huge rate increases with slick PR campaigns and additional financing fees.

The WV PSC must balance the interests of consumers with those of utilities. Simply denying a rate increase needed to keep the utility solvent isn't an option.

What's a regulator to do?

Break those utility chains that bind you, Commissioners! Instead of being lead around by the utilities like a monkey on a leash, how about leading for a change? We're only going to get a handle on utility rate increases when regulators start acting like regulators and stop acting like utility sycophants.

Only when regulators use their authority to lead utilities can true balance happen. Perhaps our Governor should start appointing Commissioners with the proper skills, instead of appointing his cronies to the PSC as political favors.

0 Comments

Remembering Bill Howley

4/29/2015

4 Comments

UWUA Local 304 recently shared a heartfelt tribute to West Virginia energy activist Bill Howley, who passed away last week.

You can get the details here.

My condolences are also with the Howley family at this difficult time.

To honor Bill, I'm going to tell you all a Bill story. It's a little insight into his wicked sense of humor and the fun we managed to have even when the PATH transmission line was breathing down our necks. And it's a story Bill liked to tell often, with a chuckle and grin on his face.

In early 2011, just before the PATH project was put into abeyance, I was browsing PATH's website looking for something or other. I happened to notice that one page had a link to see what others were saying "in the news" in support of PATH. The link was supposed to click through to PATH's "Coalition for Reliable Power."

The "Coalition for Reliable Power" was a front group Allegheny Energy had created to build the appearance of public support for its TrAIL project. It consisted of a tri-state "coalition" of supporters, with subgroups for each affected state (Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Virginia). The "Coalitions for Reliable Power" had a website, created by PR spinners Burson Marsteller. This is the link new PR company Charles Ryan had designed into PATH's website to see what others are saying about PATH "In the News."

However, shortly after the PATH applications were filed with the state agencies in 2009, Charles Ryan and PATH redesigned their whole coalition organization. Instead of one coalition with state-specific subgroups, PATH created three individual websites, one for each state, and attempted to pretend there was grassroots support for the PATH project. New websites were created for these "coalitions." The original "Coalition for Reliable Power" website was eventually abandoned, when its registration expired. However, Charles Ryan never updated the link on PATH's website.

So, in early 2011, PATH's website link to see what others were saying about PATH "In the News" was clicking through to a dead link -- the domain name was for sale!

And an idea was born!

Working with Bill and fellow PATH opponent and domain name queen Shelly Channell, we concocted a plan to buy the "Coalition for Reliable Power" web domain name and slap up a website touting competitor Dominion's Alternative One. Shelly did the buying and pointing of the domain name, Bill built the website, and I registered the business name "Coalition for Reliable Power" with the WV Secretary of State.

Then, when someone browsing PATH's website clicked on PATH's link to see what others are saying about PATH "In the News," they ended up at our new Alternative One site. Alternative One was a plan by Dominion to simply rebuild several transmission lines in West Virginia in order to increase transmission capacity, and cost one-third as much as PATH. Ultimately, Alternative One is what caused the cancellation of PATH, and has since been built with little fuss and opposition.

So, we chuckled and waited. How long would it take PATH to notice that it was now hosting a link to an opposition website? I guess we had a little too much fun with that and the increased traffic must have sounded some alarms at Charles Ryan Associates, because someone at the agency clicked through to our Alternative One site about a week later and then removed the link from PATH's website.

We figured it wouldn't be long before our friends at PATH found the Alternative One site. But, that's not what happened... apparently Charles Ryan didn't mention the whole incident to PATH. I mean, why admit your failures, right?

We thought it was important for Charles Ryan to tell its client what had happened, and that it was made possible by Charles Ryan's failure to monitor and update PATH's website in a timely fashion, a task it was being paid handsomely to perform. Charles Ryan seemed to be keeping a secret from its client!

We did the only thing a parent would do when a sneaky child wasn't being honest... we set out on a journey to make Charles Ryan fess up. "Charles Ryan has a secret" went viral! People from all over started following along, and learning about PATH in the process. We even created a sort of scavenger hunt, with clues, and encouraged followers to help uncover Charles Ryan's secret. And, of course, PATH was also dying to know what the secret was, but couldn't figure it out either. Only after a reader used his/her noggin to puzzle this out from the clues and post it on the blog, did PATH manage to follow the trail of breadcrumbs to the Alternative One site. PATH was cancelled just a few short weeks later.

And how we laughed!

This is how I will remember Bill. Rest in peace.

4 Comments

Don't Waste Your Money on FirstEnergy Add Ons

3/2/2015

40 Comments

Have you been getting random mailers from "Potomac Edison," "Mon Power," or another FirstEnergy distribution affiliate trying to sell you an "Exterior Electrical Line Protection Plan from HomeServe?"

Just say no.

Go outside and look at your electric meter. You are responsible for some components of your electric service connection. The utility is responsible for the meter components and any underground service lines. You are responsible for maintaining the rest. Is your service drop overhead, or underground? Read the fine print:

The meter that measures the amount of electricity used, any underground service entrance conductor, and the meter base (materials only) are not covered under this plan, but are covered by your local FirstEnergy Company. Your local FirstEnergy Company will supply the materials to repair or replace the meter base...

So, what is covered? An overhead connection to your house (cost estimated at $200) and the labor to replace the company-supplied meter base (estimated to cost another $200), if they ever need to be replaced! So, how much will FirstEnergy's insurance cost you? $5.49/month. Forever. You'd be better off putting that $5.49 in a mason jar every month, on the off chance that you ever do need these unusual electrical repairs, so that you can hire a local electrician to fix them. FirstEnergy's literature claims that your homeowner's insurance won't cover these repairs. Know why? Because the cost of repairs is usually lower than your deductible!

Why would you want to give a bunch of money to the utility for "insurance" against an unusual problem that only costs a couple hundred bucks to fix? It doesn't say "stupid" on my forehead. Oh, but wait! If you sign up you will receive a "special" phone number to call to get your service. If you remember what you did with that phone number and the rest of your paperwork when you have an outdoor electrical line issue, then you could avoid the hassles of looking for an electrician in the yellow pages and "waiting" for service (because service dispatched through Akron, Ohio, is much quicker than calling an electrician in your own town).

Sounds like a scam to me!

So, I've been a Potomac Edison (or Allegheny Power, when that name suited them) customer for nearly 30 years. How come I'm just now being bombarded with these junk mailers? Because the West Virginia PSC recently sold me out to the company, going against the advice of its own Staff, the Consumer Advocate Division, and the findings of one of its own Administrative Law Judges.

Say what? Take a look at WV PSC Case No. 13-0021-E-PC (look up "Case Information" here). Two years ago, FirstEnergy asked the PSC for permission for its two West Virginia distribution companies (Potomac Edison and Mon Power) to market these useless "services" and products to their customers and to add the cost of any purchases to the customer's electric bill.

The Staff of the PSC and the Consumer Advocate objected to FirstEnergy's plan, which, in addition to the "Exterior Electrical Line Protection Plan," will soon be offering you:

1. Other Home Solutions maintenance and repair plans (i.e. insurance) for other appliances you own, your natural gas service lines and even your plumbing.

2. Surge suppression service (which they already separately offer as part of their regulated service activity in West Virginia).

3. Customer Electrical Services Program that allows your electric company to "arrange" electrical service work to be performed in your home. You still pay for all the work they do, your monthly fee just alleviates your "hassle" of finding your own electrician and negotiating a reasonable fee for service with him.

4. Online store - where you can buy all sorts of useless crap and energy-wasting space heaters, and pay for it all on your monthly electric bill.

A hearing was held, and the PSC's Administrative Law Judge recommended that the Commission prohibit this kind of promotion. However, FirstEnergy didn't like that decision, so they filed exceptions to the Judge's Order and the Commission disregarded it and made a new finding that FirstEnergy could continue to promote these useless "services."

Remember, none of these services are regulated, so if you have an issue with service or billing of these add-ons, the PSC can't help you. You're on your own to solve the problem with the company (and it's not even the utility you'll be fighting with, but some third-party "insurance company") or through the court system.

So, how much money does FirstEnergy make off these products? Is the company really that desperate that it needs to peddle space heaters and worthless "insurance" to its customers? It's not about the few pennies in kickbacks FirstEnergy receives from these third-party companies for selling you a "service," it's about the half a million bucks FirstEnergy was paid by one of these third-party companies for "licensing rights and utility bill access fees" to access Potomac Edison's or Mon Power's customer records and to have your utility bill you for their services. FirstEnergy is essentially selling an asset -- its customer base and monthly billing system -- to a private company that hopes to make money selling things to the customer base. There is a commercial value to a customer base of 500,000 customers. When the customer base is acquired through a regulated monopoly, should the utility be able to sell it for private profit? Your WV Public Service Commission says they can.

Tell your legislators to ask the PSC why they have allowed Potomac Edison and Mon Power to sell you out like that. And think twice about jacking up your monthly electric bills with "insurance" you'll probably never need and overpriced lightbulbs from FirstEnergy's online store.

And want to have some fun right now? All those junk mailers they're sending you have postage paid return envelopes to "Plan Administrator." The envelope instructs: "Include only your form and nothing else." If you don't sign up for the plan, you won't need a "form," so go ahead and stuff them with "nothing else" or whatever you want and return them. See how much scrap paper you can fit into the envelope! Or perhaps your child would like to draw a picture for "Plan Administrator?" Go ahead, have some fun!

And then, get serious. The fine print instructs:

If you would prefer not to receive these solicitation from HomeServe, please call 1-888-866-2127.

Tell them you don't want to receive any more offers for their services from Potomac Edison or Mon Power and see what happens. Of course, this won't stop the other offers from the other vendors mentioned above, but it's a start. I'd like to know who's really controlling the mailing list here -- is it FirstEnergy or is it HomeServe? Let me know what you are told in the comments section of this blog post...

40 Comments

Did You Get a Good Deal in Potomac Edison/Mon Power Rate Settlement?

2/5/2015

2 Comments

The West Virginia PSC has approved the settlement reached by the parties to FirstEnergy's request to increase rates, and your rates will go up 8% overall on February 25. Yeah, rate increases suck, but I think the bigger question here is... Did you get a better deal in the settlement than you would have if this case had gone through the full evidentiary hearing and been decided by the Commissioners?

I'm thinking... yes. And here's why:

Actual base rate increase requested: $95.7M (9.3%).
Actual base rate increase granted: $15M (1.45%).

Vegetation Management Surcharge requested: $48.4M
Vegetation Management Surcharge granted: $47.5M HOWEVER, something good happened here that is not reflected in the number. For the first time, FirstEnergy will have to account for every dollar spent on vegetation management and file semi-annual reports that true up its actual expenditures to actual rates collected. The vegetation management expenses must be reviewed for prudence. In the past, the company was simply handed a certain amount annually for "vegetation management." The company never had to account for how (or if!) the amount was actually spent on vegetation management. What happened is that the company wasn't doing adequate vegetation management, resulting in more severe and frequent outages, but was using the money to bulk up its balance sheet and share dividends. Now all the money collected for vegetation management must be spent actually maintaining vegetation. This is a very good thing!

Depreciation rate change increase requested: $17M
Depreciation rate change granted: None.

Requested increase in monthly customer charge: $1 (up to $6 from the existing $5)
Monthly customer charge granted: $5 (no change).

Deferred expense for 2012 storm restoration: $45.8M. The companies wanted to collect this with an annual return calculated on the balance. Instead, they will collect this over 5 years ($9M/yr.) WITHOUT any return (interest) being paid.

The company wanted to collect $60M in expense it incurred in closing its Albright, Willow Island and Rivesville generating plants. Instead, it will collect zero. However, the companies are permitted to defer this expense (hold it on their balance sheet) for the time being, and may request recovery of it at a later date. At that later date, you bet the recovery request will include years of "interest" accrued during the deferral. This bears watching!

The companies had requested a surcharge to pay for the cost of upgrading their generators to comply with EPA regulations. They withdrew their request in the settlement, however, the settlement simply kicks that can down the road, allowing the companies to create a regulatory asset (deferral) for those costs and to collect them during its next base rate case. In the meantime, the accumulating costs will earn 8.19% return (interest), which will be payable at the next rate increase.

But, it looks like the apportionment of rates between customer classes was adjusted to lower rates of the industrial users, while residential rates were increased. Remember, industrial users were a party to this settlement.

Do you think you might have gotten a better deal from the PSC Commissioners? I doubt it. They're used to giving FirstEnergy everything it wants. The Commissioners aren't really fighting for you, but the staff of the PSC, and our Consumer Advocate WERE fighting for you here and I think they engineered the best deal possible. There was never any chance that the PSC would simply deny the rate increase in its entirety. It was all about "how much." And you kept the pressure on by filing comments and speaking at the public hearings. Get educated, stay engaged!

2 Comments

How Regulated Utilities Rip You Off

1/21/2015

0 Comments

It's really not news, per se, but it's now been verified by economic data -- regulated utilities with cost of service rates have no incentive to minimize their costs that are passed on to ratepayers. In addition, state-regulated utilities may actually buy more expensive, in-state fuel to appease their political puppets. And they get away with it because our state regulatory agencies are cozily captured by the entities they regulate.

These were some of the findings of a recent study by Asst. Prof. Steve Cicala from the Energy Policy Institute at Chicago that was published in American Economic Review. The study, When Does Regulation Distort Costs? Lessons from Fuel Procurement in US Electricity Generation, was undertaken to study regulation to find the characteristics of "bad" regulation, instead of simply doing away with all regulation.

This paper evaluates changes in fuel procurement practices by coal and gas-fired power plants in the United States following state-level legislation that ended cost-of-service regulation of electricity generation. I find that deregulated plants substantially reduce the price paid for coal (but not gas) and tend to employ less capital-intensive sulfur abatement techniques relative to matched plants that were not subject to any regulatory change. Deregulation also led to a shift toward more productive coal mines. I show how these results lend support to theories of asymmetric information, capital bias, and regulatory capture as important sources of regulatory distortion.

The study looked at fuel deliveries to coal- & gas-fired electric power plants, to compare regulated to deregulated.

He found that the deregulated plants combined save about $1 billion a year compared to those that remained regulated. This is because a lack of transparency, political influence and poorly designed reimbursement rates led the regulated plants to pursue inefficient strategies when purchasing coal.

Deregulated plants paid 12% less for coal... because they have an economic interest in the cost to run the plant. Deregulated plants sell a product, and all their costs to produce that product are included in the cost of their product in a competitive market. In contrast, regulated plants sell a service at their cost, the supply of power. You will pay whatever it costs to produce the power, plus a guaranteed return. The higher the cost, the bigger the return. With ratepayers footing all the bills, these plants have absolutely no incentive to purchase the cheapest fuel available.

This is compounded by the "confidential," opaque nature of coal markets, where regulators may not compare prices to know when plant operators are paying too much for fuel. The same effect was not found in deregulated gas plants, and this was attributed to the transparent nature of natural gas markets.

In addition, the study found that regulated plant owners are more likely to curry favor with state regulators by purchasing more expensive in-state fuel for their plants. With ratepayers picking up the tab, why not? This is how states like West Virginia continue to be ruled by a dying coal industry, and part of the WV PSC's basis for approving the "sale" of an uncompetitive deregulated coal-fired plant into West Virginia's regulated environment in 2013.

The study also found that deregulated plants increase their purchase of low-sulphur coal from out-of-state mines as a cheaper way to meet environmental regulations. Regulated plants will choose installing expensive scrubbers, because ratepayers pick up the tab and the utilities collect a return on their investment.

Although the study only concentrated on fuel costs of regulated v. deregulated generators, its findings can be liberally applied across the board to all aspects of regulated electric utilities, whose cost of service rates are padded with all sorts of uneconomic purchases. When faced with the cost of its own inefficiency, the utility will always find a cheaper way to get things done, but not when ratepayers are picking up the tab.

0 Comments

Faster, FirstEnergy, Faster!

1/16/2015

0 Comments

Isn't that amazing? FirstEnergy has learned to work faster for shale clients. Remember that next time you want some service... pretend you're a shale gas company.

And here's another amazing fact:

Their promise and rapid pace of development happen to coincide with the Akron-based electricity company’s recent focus on making its transmission segment the lead revenue growth generator for FirstEnergy, where Mr. Bridenbaugh serves as vice president of transmission.

Serendipity, right?

So, who pays to supply electricity to new shale gas companies? You do.

Most of the time, when the company upgrades a transmission line or builds a substation to service a new gas processing plant, the investment is recovered from the utilities that benefit from the upgrade.

Utilities. Got that? Not shale gas companies.

How much will you pay?

...the company has said it wants to retrench in its utility and transmission businesses, both of which provide a guaranteed rate of return. For transmission projects, the return is often in the double digits.

Lots.

Why are you paying? Because the new shale gas companies make the existing grid unreliable, and you need reliability! (which came first? the chicken or the egg?)

Because the new, shale-related loads are springing up in rural areas with older or nonexistent infrastructure, the new pull on the lines often presents a reliability risk for other customers drawing electricity in the area. Therefore, many such projects end up going before PJM Interconnection, a Valley Forge-based organization that manages the nation’s largest grid, servicing 13 states in the northeast including Pennsylvania.

PJM has a formula to determine who’s responsible for the cost of upgrades.

Typically, for projects like those on FirstEnergy’s shale plate, it’s shared between the direct beneficiary — a compressor station or processing plant — and the regional utilities whose customers also see a benefit from improved service and reliability.

Hmm... I wonder if regional utilities want to pay half my electric bill this month? Because, you know, I could jump up from my chair and turn on every electric appliance and light in the house right now. And that might hurt regional reliability... right?

0 Comments

For Sale: Environmental Liability

1/7/2015

2 Comments

The Columbus Dispatch reports today that AEP has hired Goldman-Sachs to explore the potential sale of its unregulated coal-fired merchant generation fleet.

Coal-fired power plants are no longer profitable. AEP and FirstEnergy have been unloading these liabilities on the backs of ratepayers in regulated states, and even have cases pending to unload them in unregulated states.

The power plants are no longer profitable because the price of power has fallen below the cost to operate them, and these plants need a bunch of expensive retrofits to comply with new EPA regulations. AEP and FirstEnergy are in a bind because they placed all their eggs in the same basket by hanging onto coal plants way past the time when smart utilities unloaded them at fire-sale prices. Corporate greed strikes again!

The WV PSC just recently approved an AEP subsidiary's purchase of all but 140MW of one of the company's merchant plants, making Wheeling Power and Appalachian Power customers responsible for operating it and absorbing any losses.

In 2013, the WV PSC approved FirstEnergy's plan to dispose of its Harrison Power Station the same way, by making customers of Mon Power and Potomac Edison responsible for it.

The WV PSC never met a coal-fired power plant or rate increase that it didn't like.

Encouraged by the WV PSC, the Ohio companies next decided to try to unload more of their coal-fired assets on ratepayers in Ohio. Except... Ohio is a deregulated generation state. Demonstrating extreme creativity, the tedious twins came up with ingenious plans to shift responsibility for the plants to ratepayers anyhow. FirstEnergy came up with its "Powering Our Profits" plan. I don't know if AEP came up with a cutsie-poo name like FirstEnergy, but it also put forth a proposal to transfer responsibility for its plants to Ohio ratepayers.

Gotta wonder how those cases are going to turn out at the PUCO, considering:

AEP has proposals pending with Ohio regulators that would provide a profit guarantee for five plants, four of which are part of the unregulated fleet. The company has said the plans would allow it to continue operating the plants, as opposed to a potential sale or shutdown.

But now it looks like AEP is getting ready to sell them instead. Smart move. Finally.

FirstEnergy is still too dumb to buy a clue.

2 Comments

The Forked Tongue of FirstEnergy

1/2/2015

2 Comments

I noticed something funny the other day. It seems that FirstEnergy is having trouble telling the same story about its transmission building endeavors to different audiences.

Just like new transmission lines proposed to criss-cross the midwest to allow "wind" to interconnect with the existing transmission system are nothing more than gigantic generator lead lines, FirstEnergy's "Energizing the Future" campaign to build new substations and transmission in West Virginia are nothing more than gigantic service lines to new Marcellus shale processing plants.

Generator lead lines (the transmission necessary to connect a generator to the existing transmission system) are paid for by the generator. It's part of their cost of selling power, just like the rest of their plant.

So, why are service lines for new customers the responsibility of all customers? If I wanted to open a plastics factory in my backyard and asked Potomac Edison for service, I bet they'd charge me plenty... like the entire cost of the service line connected to whatever voltage I required for my plant, or the cost to upgrade existing lines to serve my plant.

The State Journal reports that FirstEnergy is building new transmission and substations in West Virginia to support the Marcellus shale industry.

Projects include the new Waldo Run transmission substation and a short 138-kilovolt transmission line in Doddridge County near Sherwood. The $52 million project is expected to support industrial users and enhance electric service to more than 6,000 customers in Doddridge, Harrison and Ritchie counties. The substation will accommodate additional load growth at a new natural gas processing facility, which consumes large amounts of electricity separating natural gas into dry and liquid components.

FirstEnergy is also working on a 138-kilovolt transmission line that will support the natural gas industry, as well as enhance service reliability for nearly 13,000 customers in the Clarksburg and Salem areas. The 18-mile, $55 million Oak Mound-Waldo Run transmission project is expected to be placed into service by December 2015.

The company is also evaluating additional transmission upgrades as new service requests from shale gas developers continue throughout the Mon Power territory. FirstEnergy is currently evaluating new transmission facilities in Wetzel County to support a midstream gas processing plant that continues to expand.

Would the existing 19,000 customers need their electric service "enhanced" if not for the addition of the Marcellus facilities? Probably not.

So, what is FirstEnergy telling the landowners affected by their new, Marcellus-supporting projects?

Project Need
FirstEnergy has identified the reliability risk of low voltage conditions on the transmission system under certain conditions. The proposed project addresses the reliability issues. Its assessment is based on existing conditions and the need for system reliability to safely meet the electrical needs of the region now and into the future.

Nothing about shale gas development or new Marcellus facilities there. Just mysterious "low voltage conditions on the transmission system under certain conditions." Wanna bet those "certain conditions" are the construction of Marcellus facilities?

It seems that FirstEnergy has two stories here. The one for its investors is all about building things to support Marcellus. The one for ratepayers is about building things to support existing customers. Obviously, one of these stories isn't exactly honest.

Why isn't the Marcellus industry paying the cost of new electric facilities to support its business?

Why are West Virginia electric consumers, who have been subject to more and more rate increases recently, being asked to pay the cost of harvesting Marcellus gas? Isn't the gas industry in West Virginia profitable enough without subsidies provided by ratepayers?

And if that isn't bad enough, FirstEnergy's transmission scheme is all about pumping more and more "transmission spend" into its transmission subsidiaries, like TrAILCO, that earn a sweet 12.7% return on equity courtesy of federal transmission rates. In addition, these lower voltage transmission lines are beyond the jurisdiction of state regulators. As noted on FirstEnergy's "fact sheet:"

Regulatory Approval
TrAILCo will submit a letter to the staff of the Public Service Commission of West Virginia advising them of the project.

Just a letter. No debate. FirstEnergy is a utility with eminent domain authority in West Virginia so they're just going to write a letter to the PSC, and come take your property. They don't even need to notify you until they show up with the bulldozer. Who needs due process?

Easements
In most locations, a new 150-foot wide right-of-way will be needed for the proposed transmission line. In a few locations, the new right-of-way will be 200 feet wide.

Who wins here? The Marcellus industry. FirstEnergy. And your elected officials owned by both industries.

Who loses? Ratepayers. Again.

2 Comments

FirstEnergy Puts Tony the Trickster Out to Pasture

12/16/2014

0 Comments

He shall now be forevermore known as Tony the Dotard. Yeah, I know, it just doesn't have that same ring to it, but I'm sure he can still get up to lots of corporate hijinks and mock floggings down at the senior center soon.

FirstEnergy announced today that effective January 1st, they're kicking Tony upstairs to some newly-created figurehead position known as the "executive chairman." Apparently the quotes are included in the official name of Tony's new position. I like how he stopped to pose with a big grin next to a portrait of one of his belching power plants on the way out. Classy!

So, who's next? FirstEnergy's soon to be president and CEO is Chatty Chuck Jones, the famous deal-maker who is completely out of touch with the real world the rest of us inhabit. Someday, someone's going to spit in his mashed potatoes.

FirstEnergy says that Chatty Chuck worked his way up from substation engineer, but they don't share how many co-workers he had to step on to get there. Chatty Chuck has managed FirstEnergy's distribution companies since 2010. That means he was directly responsible for that meter reading disaster over the past several years at the former Allegheny distribution companies -- Mon Power, Potomac Edison and West Penn Power. But wait... Chatty Chuck brings even more to the table! He's also former president of FirstEnergy Solutions, the company's failed competitive generation subsidiary.

Chatty Chuck is also the insufferable jerk who made that stupid $102M deal to plaster FirstEnergy's name all over Cleveland Browns Stadium a couple years ago. In the wake of all the bad publicity that generated, Chatty Chuck tried to clear it up with an amusing little story about how he intimidated the staff of the restaurant where the deal went down. Aren't FirstEnergy's communications shysters going to have fun?

As amusing as all this is, Chatty Chuck shares that nothing will change. He's going to run the company exactly like Tony the Dotard did. And, just in case he starts acting like a wise guy:

Alexander, serving in the newly created position as executive chairman of the company, said he will be in an advisory role. "But Chuck is running the company," he said.

...with a wink.

Demonstrating that FirstEnergy's death spiral will continue, perhaps even speed up, Jones revealed that he doesn't understand finance.

"Having a stronger technical understanding of the finances would be a plus, but I don't see it as a necessity," he added.

...he has henchmen for that.

0 Comments

What Society Can Learn From Dr. Luther Gerlach

12/2/2014

3 Comments

A while back, I shared a little bit about Dr. Luther Gerlach and his work studying public response to electric transmission projects and how it produces debate about and shapes our energy future. I included a link where you could download his short film, Grassroots Energy.

Now I'd like to share more about this amazing man, how he works, and how he created Grassroots Energy.

Luther and Ursula Gerlach doing research in early 1970s on a protest of long haul truckers against high cost of their diesel fuel. They made a 16mm film of the truckers' strike.

Dr. Gerlach explains how and why Grassroots Energy was made:

In the late 1990s, I made 12 videos for a distance learning version of my course Ecological Anthropology at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. I made these with the assistance of my wife, Ursula, my colleague Paul Eide in University Media Resources, and research assistant Tis Stringer. To make these videos, we used 16 mm movie film, 35 mm slide/still film, and audio tape that Ursula and I had taken over years of anthropological field research in the USA, Kenya, Germany, and other places. Our practice has been to complement written note taking with film and audio recording during this field research. We draw upon our film and tape library to present lectures in class and also to make films and videos for use in class and in distance learning. In recent years, we have digitized film and analog tape to make programs that can be presented via computer.

It is thus that we made the Ecological Anthropology program Grassroots Energy. I introduce and then conclude the movie with still photos and voice over narration. The movie itself is 27 minutes long, originally a 16 mm film. We filmed during our field research. We began research and recording in August 1974, shortly after farmers and townsfolk in West Central Minnesota learned that Cooperative and United Power had applied to state authorities for permits to build a +/-400kVDC line from a mine mouth plant in North Dakota across their land to a AC converter facility in a Minneapolis suburb. We continued research and recording through the construction and energizing of the line and early response in 1980. The film focuses on the period 1976-1978, when resistance to the line was most intense and widespread.

Filming in the field and making slide shows and movies in the era before digital imaging presented problems not experienced by the users of digital cameras. Instead of being able to take countless pictures and see the results immediately, one had to ration film and wait until processing to determine if one “got it or not.” One had to keep film – and batteries - cool in the summer and warm in the winter. And it was obvious to all that one was taking pictures or recording audio. In any event, we observed the cardinal and ethical rule of anthropology: to get informed consent of those photographed.

Before we released the film about the CU transmission line issue and resistance to it, we showed it to those involved in the resistance.

A citizen’s organization in Wisconsin concerned with electricity production, distribution and use asked me if it could show the Grassroots Energy movie for a fundraiser. After some deliberation, I agreed. I then also agreed that a blog concerned with electricity transmission issues could provide access to this movie. Further, I have included clips from the movie as well as other information about the CU case in a presentation to a workshop on transmission held in part by Edison Electric Institute.

I am now working to make available more of my published and unpublished material, print and audiovisual, on transmission and other energy issues.

Luther P. Gerlach, PhD
Professor emeritus of Anthropology, University of Minnesota

Biosketch

My studies of public response to electricity transmission lines is part of my broader study of the interplay of social movements and established orders in the management of technological and ecological risk and resource use locally, regionally and globally. Thus, I examine how the interplay between advocates and opponents of transmission grid expansion produces debate about the energy future and shapes this future.

I have studied social movements, ecological adaptation, and related cultural change in the USA, Germany, and along the Kenya coast. Following undergraduate and graduate study at the University of Minnesota, I served as a US Army officer in the Far East and a US government researcher in Germany. I then attended the University of London, particularly its School of Oriental and African Studies and also its London School of Economics, receiving certificates in African Law(Islamic Law Option) and Swahili, and a PhD in Cultural Anthropology (1960), following field research in Kenya. In addition to my professorship in Anthropology at the University of Minnesota, I have been visiting professor at the Environmental Quality Lab of the California Institute of Technology, the Aspen Institute of Humanistic Studies, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Science Center, Berlin, Germany.

If you haven't watched the film yet, you can download it here.

Luther's research, writings and film come closest that I have ever seen to capturing the feelings and purpose of people and groups who oppose transmission lines. He has an understanding and appreciation for both sides of the energy debate, and studying his work should propel us along toward solutions.

Instead, it appears that we are poised to make the same mistakes about centralized renewables that we made with centralized fossil fuel generation decades ago. Why must the few sacrifice for the many when there are better solutions available? Only when we understand social movements and energy equality can we learn from history and stop making the same mistakes over and over.

Dr. Gerlach has a huge body of work, some of which I've had the pleasure to read and ponder, and I hope he continues to make more of his published and unpublished works available. There's so much to be learned!

Some of Dr. Gerlach's publications pertinent to social movements and energy for further reading:

Gerlach, Luther P, 2014. Public Reaction to Electricity Transmission Lines, Reference Module in Earth Systems and Environmental Sciences, Elsevier, 2014. 21-Mar-14 doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.09111-9.

Gerlach, L. P. (1999). The structure of social movements: Environmental activism and its opponents.  In Waves of Protest: Social Movements since the Sixties.  (J. Freeman and V. Johnson, Eds.), pp. 85–97. Rowan & Littlefield, NY

Gerlach, Luther P., and David Bengston. 1994. “If Ecosystem Management Is the Solution, What Is the Problem?” Journal of Forestry 92, no. 8 (August): 18–21.

Gerlach, L. & Palmer, G. (1981). Adaptation through evolving interdependence, pp 323-381 in Nystrom P.C, & Starbuck W.  Handbook of organizational design, vol 1. Adapting 0rganizations to their environments. New York, Oxford Press

Gerlach, Luther P. (1979). Energy Wars and Social Change, in Predicting Sociocultural Change, Susan Abbot and John van Willigen, eds. Southern Anthropological Society Proceedings #13. Athens: University of Georgia Press

Gerlach, L.P. 1978  Gerlach, Luther P. (1978). “The Great Energy Standoff.” Natural History 87 (January).

Gerlach, Luther P., and Virginia H. Hine. 1973. Lifeway Leap: The Dynamics of Change in America. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Gerlach, Luther P., and Virginia H. Hine. 1970. People, Power, Change: Movements of Social Transformation. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.

Gerlach LP and Eide P (1978) Grassroots Energy, 16-mm 27- minute, sound, color film. University of Minnesota Media Resources. Distributed by Penn State University Film.

We all owe Dr. Gerlach and his wife many thanks for their capable documentation and thoughtful commentary on our energy wars. Now, let's do it better this time around as we move toward a cleaner, more democratic energy future!

3 Comments

<<Previous

Forward>>

Captured WV PSC Will Continue to Increase Utility Rates Like a Rubber Stamp

Remembering Bill Howley

Don't Waste Your Money on FirstEnergy Add Ons

Did You Get a Good Deal in Potomac Edison/Mon Power Rate Settlement?

How Regulated Utilities Rip You Off

Faster, FirstEnergy, Faster!

For Sale: Environmental Liability

The Forked Tongue of FirstEnergy

FirstEnergy Puts Tony the Trickster Out to Pasture

What Society Can Learn From Dr. Luther Gerlach

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