Pennsylvania Smart Meter Awareness * PASMA
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 9-8-15
Contact: Tom McCarey
Telephone:
610-687-7607
CONSUMER AFFAIRS COMMITTEE CHAIR GODSHALL HELD HEARINGS FOR ELECTRIC
UTILITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANIES TO OPT-OUT FROM SMART METER ACT 129
REGULATIONS AS HE REFUSES TO RELEASE SMART METER RATEPAYER OPT-OUT BILLS
FOR A COMMITTEE VOTE
September 1st, 2015, a true anomaly
occurred in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania regarding the right of
redress for grievances before government, its legislature and regulating
agencies. PA House of Representatives Consumer Affairs Committee Chair
Robert W Godshall acquiesced to corporate demands by staging a hearing
wherein testimony was presented by numerous vested corporate interests,
i.e., EDCs (electric distribution companies) to air their grievances
regarding relief from penalties ranging from $1 million to $20 million
regardless of fault in not meeting energy efficiency and peak demand
reduction mandates contained in Act 129 of 2008, AND their requests for
opt-out privileges, which Godshall said the committee and the PA PUC
would take under advisement.
The irony of the hearing that
Representative Godshall chaired is that he REFUSES to allow committee
voting for various opt-outs bills (past and present) for ratepayer
consumers regarding Smart Meters (SMs) that 7 utilities are forcing on
to them without regard for, nor concerns about, the problems AMI Smart
Meters cause: fires, explosions, EMF/RF health problems due to
non-thermal adverse reactions, plus consumers being liable for fire
damage caused by SMs that insurance companies refuse coverage for and
which utility companies blame on homeowners, when fires occurred after
SM retrofits.
Contrasting the two situations listed above,
one has to wonder where Godshall’s interests are to be found: with
consumers’ affairs or with vested corporate interests, especially since
his son, Grey Godshall, works as a manager for PECO/Exelon, the largest
electric and natural gas supplier in the USA.
An issue that
seems paramount to utilities is that “Act 129 allows EDCs to recover
only the costs of implementing energy efficiency and peak demand
reduction requirements and caps the cost of the combined programs at 2%
of the EDC’s total annual revenues as of December 31, 2006. The law
specifically precludes EDCs from recovering the revenue they lose due to
customer usage reductions,” as the Energy of Pennsylvania Association
president testified.
The Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and
Industry Manager of Government Affairs dropped this little hint as to
what ratepayers can expect: “It can then be reasonably projected that
over the next three years, utilities will spend roughly an additional
$735 million to comply with the new targets – all of which will be borne
by ratepayers [consumers].”
Representative Evankovich, a
member of the Consumer Affairs Committee, questioned the inequity in the
system for business customers—not homeowner customers’ inequities—and
how businesses that were energy efficient in the first place are now
penalized under Act 129. Nothing was questioned regarding how
consumers/ratepayers, who dramatically and negatively are impacted by
SMs under Act 129, was ever addressed. It was all about corporate
interests and “follow the money.”
Newly-appointed PA PUC
Chairman, Gladys M Brown, testified that there are five changes coming
to Act 129, all of which seemingly may have favorable impacts for
Pennsylvania utilities and EDCs. However, nothing was said about
favorably impacting ratepayers/consumers. Why?
The Director of
Regulatory and Government Affairs for EnerNOC testified that “While
EDCs can recover the direct costs of the Act 129 programs [apparently
from grants and ratepayer rate hikes], they are not able to recover the
lost revenue that results from less energy being used.” He went on to
say, “If utilities can’t earn a return on this technology, they will be
less likely to deploy it relative to traditional infrastructure
investments for which they can earn a return.” What about ratepayers?
The Director of PennFuture Energy Center pointed to “Protect our
existing gains—Any action that lowers the Act 129 budgets or lowers the
EDC’s targets means that another program will have to do more. At a
minimum, we should avoid weakening the program.” With regard to
“Rethink our rate designs—In our restructured market, our electric
utilities are in the business of selling electric distribution services,
not electricity itself. They should be paid a fair price for the
service they provide, but the rate design should encourage energy
efficiency not waste.”
However, it was the testimony of the
Industrial Energy Consumers of Pennsylvania (IECPA) that delineated
what’s involved when he presented Slide 6 of his PowerPoint presentation
regarding “Concerns and Facts About the Opt-Out,” which applies to
power company suppliers, not ratepayer consumers—a BIG difference
regarding the word “consumers.” Those Opt-Out Concerns, as appeared in
the PP presentation, include:
• “Opt-Out reduces Residential & Small Business Participation
• Opt-Out will reduce large consumer energy efficiency
• Opt-Out allows consumers to collect grants & leave the Program without paying
• Opt-Out reduces energy industry jobs in the Commonwealth
• Opt-Out reduces funding to large consumer market segment
• Opt-Out allows large consumers to avoid investment in PA or energy efficiency”
How can EDCs present their grievances and be taken seriously regarding
the impacts of Act 129 of 2008 when homeowners/ratepayers/
consumers
have been trying to get relief from the problems Act 129 creates for
thousands upon thousands of Pennsylvanians and Committee Chair Godshall
refuses to call opt-out bills for a vote, plus his staffers are very
rude to every ratepayer/consumer who calls Godshall’s office to register
their comments? However, Godshall was very cordial to all EDC
representatives who testified.\
PASMA respectfully asks the
Pennsylvania legislature to enforce Robert W Godshall’s recusing
himself, as he apparently is playing favorites in not allowing Smart
Meter Opt-out Bills to be called for a vote and also has a conflict of
interest in his son’s employment with PECO/Exelon. Should there be a
recall referendum instituted against Godshall?
###
If
you would like more information about this topic, or to schedule an
interview with a member of PASMA, please call Tom McCarey at
610-687-7607.
