MORGANTOWN – FirstEnergy sisters Mon Power and Potomac Edison have filed their objections to a proposal by Longview Power to cut $145 million from their $167.5 million ENEC rate-hike case.
They filed the objections with the Public Service Commission on Friday.
The PSC case is Mon Power’s and Potomac Edison’s annual ENEC – expended net energy cost – filing.
They are asking for $167,465,330, which they project would add $9.19 to the average monthly residential bill, raising it from $120.20 to $129.39 – a 7.8% hike.
Longview Power in a Friday filing is asking the PSC to dismiss $144,805,585, saying the FirstEnergy companies have not prudently managed their costs or complied with PSC directives. They are asking the PSC to dismiss these costs with prejudice, meaning the companies could never again seek to recoup them.
That would leave the companies a hike of just $22,659,745 in this case.
Longview said the portion they want dismissed – the nearly $145 million – is under-recovery for the period of July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. State code requires the PSC to determine that “the costs resulted from prudent actions on the part of the utility and were reasonable.”
The period in question – Fiscal Year 2002 – was a period of rising energy prices and the companies should have been operating their power plants at high capacity and selling the power into the PJM regional energy grid, which would have reduced their ENEC costs and saved ratepayers money.
Instead, Longview said, the companies ran their Fort Martin and Harrison coal-fired plants at lower capacities. “Consequently, instead of making money during the 2021-2022 Review Period, the Companies lost money at an alarming rate.”
The sister companies offer several reasons why the PSC should deny Longview’s motion to dismiss the $145 million.
One, Longview was a party in last year’s ENEC case and essentially agreed the costs were prudent and reasonable by agreeing to a settlement in that case.
(All told, Mon Power and Potomac Edison calculate an under-recovery – recouping less than they spent – of $243,032,313. They propose to split the total $243 million across two years, so this ENEC request, filed Aug. 31, is for the $167.5 million. This year’s case includes $91,898,347 that was deferred from their 2022 ENEC case, per the settlement.)
They note that the PSC decision to keep the 2022 ENEC open for review because of the carryover caused some confusion. However, “The Companies obviously presented affirmative evidence of the prudency of those costs in the 2022 ENEC case,”
Two, the PSC and all the parties from that case, including Longview and the West Virginia Energy Users Group – which supported Longview’s proposal in a filing earlier this week – have all of the evidence from that case to review the costs and retain the right to raise issues about those costs in this proceeding.
Three, the companies haven’t ignored or disregarded any PSC orders: the PSC didn’t order them to re-file last year’s evidence in this year’s case, or submit further evidence about that case.
The companies suggest four ways to address Longview’s concerns: they can refile all of last year’s evidence in this case; they can file a supplement to testimony in this case that the $145 million in costs was prudent; the PSC could consolidate both cases; or the PSC could simply take administrative notice of evidence in last year’s case.
They conclude: “It is disingenuous that Longview and WEUG would execute a settlement agreement in last year‘s ENEC proceeding whereby they recommended to close a portion of the review period and now argue for full disallowance of the review period costs. … There is no incentive for the companies to agree to spread incurred costs over a Ion er recovery period if a stipulating party is then going to argue ‘gotcha’ the following year that you didn’t refile everything from an existing case where everyone was involved as a party.”
Their other two cases are to fund their Vegetation Management Program, for the average residential customer a hike of $2.47 per month; and a base rate hike request that would raise the cost for the average residential customer by $18.07 per month.
Other PSC news
In other Friday PSC filings:
- Mon Power and Potomac Edison filed a new case for approval for new pilot market-base tariff for select large industrial customers. It would be a voluntary option and limited to two customers. This case will be fully explained in a future story.
- Customers of Cardinal Natural Gas Company Northern Division-Blacksville should see their gas bills go down a bit starting Nov. 1. The PSC’s Utilities Division submitted an interim rate recommendation agreeing with the Cardinal’s proposed purchased gas rate case, to recover actual costs. The average residential customer bill would decrease by $16.72 per month or 16.59% and the average commercial customer bill would decrease by $61.22 per month or 17.88%.
- For customers of Mountaineer Gas, which serves 49 of 55 counties, the PSC Utility Division recommended a proposed purchased gas rate that would lower an average residential customer bill by $34.11 per month, 18.25%, to take effect Nov. 1.
Email: dbeard@dominionpost.com
