The message from Staggers says "new jobs and additional tree trimming will help reduce the number and length of service interruptions."
I am about to file a complaint with the PSC about tree trimming. They brought in a helicopter that drags a long series of saw blades below it. I think the only basis for a formal complaint is that they didn't inform us ahead of time; but the consequences were:
1. Extreme noise for over an hour; very loud noise for 3 hours
2. Power blinking on and off as the helicopter moved up the hollow, which is very hard on compressors in freezers and refrigerators and on computers
3. Finally a complete power outage which lasted for 3 hours
4. A pile of large limbs blocking my lane so I was prevented from leaving for 2 hours
5. Though the limbs were thrown to the side (after I called and complained) so I could go through, they laid in the drainage ditch beside the lane for 5 days; a bad rain event could have meant road damage
6. Now that they have been removed from the ditch, they are still lying along the lane beneath the trees where they will dry up and remain unsightly instead of being chipped
We were told that this was a contract that was cheaper than having workers trim the trees from the ground. Seems to me this is decreasing jobs and increasing power interruptions. If it's cheaper, they should be reducing rates instead of increasing them.
From: ec-bounces@osenergy.org [mailto:ec-bounces@osenergy.org] On Behalf Of kevin fooce Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 6:37 PM To: Allan Tweddle; Zachary Fabish Cc: Daniel Chiotos; ec@osenergy.org Subject: Re: [EC] FW: Mon Power Rate Filing Today
If I am not mistaking this is a 3 part rate increase. First for the cost of the transfer itself. Second for operating expenses which the rate payers of WV should not pay 100% of if any of the power is shipped out of state. Third for the tree trimming. All of which adds up to about 15%.
We cannot challenge the increase for the transfer itself, but what about the cost difference between what is used in WV and outside of WV. We should be able to come up with the use on both sides. I would also argue that the manpower, maintenance, advertising, office, grants, etc should be split at that point also. Tree trimming needs to have oversight with open bidding process seeing how the rate payers have to pay this expense.
The way these companies make money is drive the cost up and use a large amount of expensive supervision. I know AEP has a lot of overhead on that part, I would say Mon may also have it.
_____
From: allantweddle@msn.com Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 17:44:21 -0400 To: zachary.fabish@sierraclub.org CC: daniel.chiotos@gmail.com; ec@osenergy.org Subject: Re: [EC] FW: Mon Power Rate Filing Today
How about advocating a Florida Power combined csp/solar/CNG plant in WV to take advantage of Marcellus?
Sent from my iPhone
On May 1, 2014, at 5:29 PM, Zachary Fabish zachary.fabish@sierraclub.org wrote:
Yeah, we can't challenge the rate increase due to the asset transfer, because that's part of the overall package (along with the ee requirements, weatherization spending, etc.) that we told the PSC was in the public interest.
I think our primary themes for messaging should be the benefits of EE, and the enormous money-saving and job-creating potential that EE poses for west Virginia.
There is this article as well on MarketWatch: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/mon-power-and-potomac-edison-file-rate-requ est-with-west-virginia-public-service-commission-2014-04-30?reflink=MW_news_ stmp
I would be interested in knowing how much we can challenge and make hay of as well. There is still the argument that coal is getting increasingly expensive as a fuel source (I've attached Cathy Kunkel's latest graph of rates, which doesn't include this filing), and with every increase in the price of electricity per kilowatt-hour, the direct financial benefits of saving energy increases.
Rate increases make strong energy efficiency plans in their Phase II Plan more beneficial, but I would be very interested in reading thoughts on what we can / cannot / should / shouldn't challenge in this rate increase...
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 8:45 AM, James Kotcon jkotcon@wvu.edu wrote:
I am not clear on the math here. Mon Power says that this is a 9.3 % rate increase, but their numbers for a typical residential customer come in at 15.3 % increase.
I realize that the Club signed on to the Settlement Agreement authorizing the Harrison transfer, but how much of this can we challenge?
Jim Kotcon
_____
From: Nancy Ganz nancyganz7@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 6:57 PM To: James Kotcon; Chris Haddox Subject: Fwd: Mon Power Rate Filing Today
Please forward this to the green team for comment and advice on this issue.
Thanks
Nancy
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: astagge@firstenergycorp.com Date: Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 4:19 PM Subject: Mon Power Rate Filing Today To: citycouncilward7@cityofmorgantown.org
I wanted to inform you that today, Mon Power filed with The Public Service Commission of West Virginia (PSC), a request for an increase in base rates of approximately $96 million, which represents an overall increase of 9.3%.
Approval of this filing will help ensure continued safe and reliable electric generation for our customers in West Virginia. In addition, new jobs and additional tree trimming will help reduce the number and length of service interruptions and better meet anticipated load growth.
The attached news release outlines the filing.
The PSC will schedule public hearings as part of the rate case proceeding. As hearings are scheduled, notice will be given on the time, date and place of the hearings. Any increase in rates would not become effective until approved and authorized by the PSC, which we anticipate will not be until February 2015.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Allen Staggers Manager, External Affairs FirstEnergy Corp. 304-534-7356
(See attached file: 2014-04-30 Mon Power and Potomac Edison File Rate Request with WV PSC.pdf)
----------------------------------------- The information contained in this message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately, and delete the original message.