Energy and Environmental Advocacy
Pepco Request for a Rate Increase (Case No. 9286 - 2011)
On December 16, 2011, Pepco filed an application for approval by the
- that the Commission must follow through on its Case No. 9240 decision and make sure that Pepco is prohibited from collecting from its customers those dollars that Pepco would not have to incur in the future if it had not been imprudent in providing unreliable electric service to its customers and
- that Pepco not be permitted to implement an automatic collection mechanism for its future reliability improvement capital expenditures.
On May 31, 2012, Montgomery County filed its Initial Brief in this matter that recommended several cost disallowances involving tree trimming/vegetation management, reliability capital expenditures and O&M expenses, storm costs, and regulatory costs from the recent reliability case (Case 9240).
Pepco Bill Stabilization Adjustment ("BSA") (Case No. 9257)
The PSC became concerned that Pepco's BSA which "decouples" the link between electricity use and utility revenues may be allowing Pepco to recover revenues lost during extended outages and thus may have inadvertently eliminated the incentive to restore service quickly by authorizing the recovery of revenues foregone during extended outages. Montgomery County commented in this proceeding to prevent the collection of lost utility revenue related to reduced electricity sales during Major Storms. As a result of this case Pepco can no longer be made whole through customer reimbursement for revenue lost because of major storm outages that affect at least 10% of Pepco's customers being without power for more than 24 hours.
Pepco Request for a Rate Increase (Case No. 9217 - 2009)
PEPCO filed an application for an increase in its retail rates for the distribution of electricity. The proposed rates would produce additional annual revenues of $14,145,000 effective January 30, 2010. OCP's comments at an Administrative Meeting of the
- Highlighting that the application acknowledged it includes significant ratemaking treatment that have not previously been proposed by PEPCO and referenced multiple issues in one proceeding some of which had been previously decided by the Commission and some were still pending.
- Requesting that the Commission open a case to review PEPCO's proposal.
In a decision issued on August 6, 2010, the