In the PATH fight, we had legislative wins every year for the last three years. Now that PATH is on hold, some of us have been working with Energy Efficient West Virginia and the WV Environmental Council to go on the offensive in some broader issues connected to the WV electrical system.

This year, we are working to pass Senate Bill 162 which would establish a least cost planning process (also known as Integrated Resource Planning, or IRP) in WV. 27 other states have created these processes. In an IRP system, power companies are required to provide the state PSC with the full range of options, along with a cost/benefit analysis of each option, for meeting the state electrical needs, both in terms of demand and reliability.

John Christensen from the WV E-Council and Cathy Kunkel from EEWV are working hard to move SB162 through the Legislature in the current session. We have a really good chance of getting it through, because there is strong support from legislators to hold down electric rates. The Senate leadership, primarily Senate Majority Leader John Unger, has been very helpful. Because the bill was introduced directly into the Senate Judiciary Committee by Sen. Dan Foster (D, Kanawha), once the bill passes that committee, it will go directly to the Senate floor for a vote.

Currently, the WV PSC has no mechanism for influencing or directing how power companies make the investment or spending decisions that have driven up our electric rates over 40% in the last 5 years. Least cost planning has the potential to hold down future rate increases by allowing the PSC, CAD and intervenors in rate cases to use the plan to argue against certain choices that power companies make that lead to higher rates. A WV least cost planning process would:

1. Give ratepayers an opportunity to comment on power company plans during the creation of the plan, instead of being forced to challenge individual decisions in rate cases, after those decisions have already been made by power companies,

2. Give citizens, the Consumer Advocate and PSC staff a tool to push the power companies toward increasing efficiency programs and demand management, instead of simply building more plants and buying more electricity,

3. Open real discussion at the PSC about the real costs and benefits of existing generation technologies in comparison with home/business based renewable power generation.

We have thought, for the past week, that Sen. Corey Palumbo, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee was ready to put SB162 on the committee agenda for passage. Power company lobbyists have swooped in and are trying to gut the bill. AEP subsidiary Appalachian Power CEO Charles Patton made a special trip to the Capitol yesterday to talk with Chairman Palumbo and sponsor Sen. Foster. That is how worried the power companies are about having their decisions reviewed openly in public.

So we need your help to keep power company changes from diluting SB162. Right now, we need you to contact by email or phone the following members of the Senate Judiciary Committee listed below. Our message is simple: Please (always say please) keep SB162 in its introduced form, without changes or amendments. That is all we need at this point.

We need you to make these contacts today Feb. 2 or tomorrow Feb. 3, to be effective. If you cannot make these contacts now, do it on Monday. If you only want to contact a few people, Sen. Palumbo and Sen. Foster are the most important, because they are the only people actively involved in any revisions to the bill before it goes to the full committee for a vote. Please contact all committee members if you can.

Here is some more detailed background, which you do not have to mention in your message to senators. AEP subsidiary CEO Patton wants the language in the original bill changed to the language in the current, very weak, VA IRP statute. Here is a link to the original SB162 written by Cathy Kunkel, as introduced by Sen. Foster. Compare our strong bill with the weak language in the VA statute here.

The VA statute contains only very vague language about public participation being heard and limits consideration to only a few factors in power company investment. Our bill is much stronger. Patton also wants us to use the words Integrated Resource Planning instead of the words least cost planning in our bill, because he does not want the focus on cutting power company costs, leaving them more wiggle room with the PSC. We believe that we can compromise here, as long as the goal of IRP is identified as finding the lowest cost resources in the definition of IRP at the end of the bill.

If we can get an acceptable bill out of Senate Judiciary, which appears likely, and if enough of us contact committee members to help them resist the power companies, we may only need to ask you for another round of contacts when SB162 gets to House Judiciary, in about 2 weeks.

Please take a moment and copy the pre-formatted email address list below into your email address field and change the field from to to bcc. Type in the following: Please pass SB162 without changes; or something like that in the subject field and type an email saying simply that you would like the committee to pass SB162 as introduced by Sen. Foster without any changes or amendments. You may also want to remind them that this is the best way to minimize future electric rate increases.

Thanks for your help on this. We will keep you updated as the bill moves along.

Here is the current contact list for Senate Judiciary Committee members:

Cut and paste email addresses:

corey.palumbo@wvsenate.gov, mark.wills@wvsenate.gov, bob.beach@wvsenate.gov, richard.browning@wvsenate.gov, john.fanning@wvsenate.gov, daniel.foster@camc.org, evan.jenkins@wvsenate.gov, art.kirkendoll@wvsenate.gov, orphy.klempa@wvsenate.gov, joe.minard@wvsenate.gov, herb.snyder@wvsenate.gov, greg.tucker@wvsenate.gov, john.unger@wvsenate.gov, bob.williams@wvsenate.gov, clark.barnes@wvsenate.gov, karen.facemyer@wvsenate.gov, dcnohe@suddenlink.net