Allegheny Power 2015 Annual Report Download - page 64

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 64 of the 2015 Allegheny Power annual report below. You can navigate through the pages in the report by either clicking on the pages listed below, or by using the keyword search tool below to find specific information within the annual report.

Page out of 163

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 56
  • 57
  • 58
  • 59
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64
  • 65
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
  • 69
  • 70
  • 71
  • 72
  • 73
  • 74
  • 75
  • 76
  • 77
  • 78
  • 79
  • 80
  • 81
  • 82
  • 83
  • 84
  • 85
  • 86
  • 87
  • 88
  • 89
  • 90
  • 91
  • 92
  • 93
  • 94
  • 95
  • 96
  • 97
  • 98
  • 99
  • 100
  • 101
  • 102
  • 103
  • 104
  • 105
  • 106
  • 107
  • 108
  • 109
  • 110
  • 111
  • 112
  • 113
  • 114
  • 115
  • 116
  • 117
  • 118
  • 119
  • 120
  • 121
  • 122
  • 123
  • 124
  • 125
  • 126
  • 127
  • 128
  • 129
  • 130
  • 131
  • 132
  • 133
  • 134
  • 135
  • 136
  • 137
  • 138
  • 139
  • 140
  • 141
  • 142
  • 143
  • 144
  • 145
  • 146
  • 147
  • 148
  • 149
  • 150
  • 151
  • 152
  • 153
  • 154
  • 155
  • 156
  • 157
  • 158
  • 159
  • 160
  • 161
  • 162
  • 163

48
EachofthePennsylvaniaCompaniescurrentlyofferdistributionratesundertheirrespectiveJointPetitionsforSettlementapproved
onApril9,2015bythePPUC,which,amongotherthings,providedforatotalincreaseinannualrevenuesforallPennsylvania
Companiesof$292.8million,($89.3millionforME,$90.8millionforPN,$15.9millionforPennand$96.8millionforWP),including
the recovery of $87.7 million of additional annual operating expenses, including costs associated with service reliability
enhancementstothedistributionsystem,amortizationofdeferredstormcostsandtheremainingnetbookvalueoflegacymeters,
assistanceforprovidingservicetolowincomecustomers,andthecreationofastormreserveforeachutility.Additionally,the
approvedsettlementsincludecommitmentstomeetcertainwaittimesforcallcentersandservicereliabilitystandards.Thenewrates
wereeffectiveMay3,2015.
OnJuly16,2013,thePPUC'sBureauofAuditsinitiatedafocusedmanagementandoperationsauditofthePennsylvaniaCompanies
asrequiredeveryeightyearsbystatute.ThePPUCissuedareportonitsfindingsandrecommendationsonFebruary12,2015,at
whichtimethePennsylvaniaCompanies'associatedimplementationplanwasalsomadepublic.InanorderissuedonMarch30,
2015,thePennsylvaniaCompaniesweredirectedtodevelopandfilebyMay29,2015arevisedimplementationplanregarding
certainoftheoperationaltopicsaddressedinthereport,includingaddressingcertainreliabilitymatters.ThePennsylvaniaCompanies
filedtheirrevisedimplementationplanincompliancewiththisorder.Afinalorderadoptingtheplan,asrevised,wasenteredon
November5,2015.ThecostofcomplianceforthePennsylvaniaCompaniesiscurrentlyexpectedtorangefromapproximately$200
millionto$230million.
OnJune19,2015,MEandPN,alongwithJCP&L,FETandMAITmadefilingswithFERC,theNJBPU,andthePPUCrequesting
authorizationforJCP&L,PNandMEtocontributetheirtransmissionassetstoMAIT,anewtransmissiononlysubsidiaryofFET.
EvidentiaryhearingsarescheduledtocommencebeforethePPUConFebruary29,2016.AfinaldecisionfromthePPUCisexpected
bymid2016.SeeTransferofTransmissionAssetstoMAITinFERCMattersbelowforfurtherdiscussionofthistransaction.
WESTVIRGINIA
MPandPEcurrentlyoperateunderaJointStipulationandAgreementofSettlementapprovedbytheWVPSConFebruary3,2015,
thatprovidedfor:a$15millionincreaseinannualbaseraterevenueseffectiveFebruary25,2015theimplementationofaVegetation
ManagementSurchargetorecoverallcostsrelatedtobothnewandexistingvegetationmaintenanceprogramsauthoritytoestablish
aregulatoryassetforMATSinvestmentsplacedintoservicein2016and2017authoritytodefer,amortizeandrecoveroverafive
yearperiodthroughbaseratesapproximately$46millionofstormrestorationcostsandeliminationoftheTTSforcostsassociated
withMP'sacquisitionoftheHarrisonplantinOctober2013andmovementofthosecostsintobaserates.
OnAugust14,2015,MPandPEfiledtheirannualENECcasewiththeWVPSCproposinganapproximate$165.1millionannual
increaseinrateseffectiveJanuary1,2016orbefore,whichwouldbea12.5%overallincreaseoverexistingrates.Theoriginal
proposedincreasewascomprisedofa$97millionunderrecoveredbalanceasofJune30,2015,aprojected$23.7millionunder
recoveryforthe2016calendaryear,andanactualunderrecoveredbalancefromMPandPE'sTTSforHarrisonPowerStationof
$44.4million.OnSeptember10,2015,MPandPEfiledanamendmentaddressingtheresultsoftherecentPJMTransitional
AuctionsforCapacityPerformance,whichresultedinanetdecreaseof$20.6millionfromtheinitialrequestedincreaseto$144.5
million.Asettlementwasreachedamongallthepartiesincreasingrevenues$96.9millionanddeferringothercostsforrecoveryinto
2017. ThesettlementwaspresentedtotheWVPSConNovember19,2015andafinalorderapprovingthesettlementwithout
changeswasissuedonDecember22,2015,withrateseffectiveonJanuary1,2016.
OnAugust31,2015,MPandPEfiledwiththeWVPSCtheirbiennialpetitionforreconciliationoftheVegetationManagement
ProgramSurchargeandregularreviewoftheprogramproposinganapproximate$37.7millionannualincreaseinratesoveratwo
yearperiod,whichisa2.8%overallincreaseoverexistingrates.Theproposedincreasewascomprisedofa$2.1millionunder
recoveredbalanceasofJune30,2015,aprojected$23.9millioninunderrecoveryforthe2016/2017rateeffectiveperiod,and
recoveryofpreviouslyauthorizeddeferredvegetationmanagementcostsfromApril14,2014throughFebruary24,2015inthe
amountof$49.9million. Asettlementwasreachedamongallthepartiesincreasingrevenues$36.7millionannuallyforthe2016
2017twoyearraterecoveryperiod,andwaspresentedtotheWVPSConNovember19,2015.Afinalorderapprovingthesettlement
withoutchangeswasissuedonDecember21,2015,withrateseffectiveonJanuary1,2016.
RELIABILITYMATTERS
Federallyenforceablemandatoryreliabilitystandardsapplytothebulkelectricsystemandimposecertainoperating,recordkeeping
andreportingrequirementsontheUtilities,FES,AESupply,FG,FENOC,NG,ATSIandTrAIL.NERCistheEROdesignatedby
FERCtoestablishandenforcethesereliabilitystandards,althoughNERChasdelegateddaytodayimplementationandenforcement
ofthesereliabilitystandardstoeightregionalentities,includingRFC.AllofFirstEnergy'sfacilitiesarelocatedwithintheRFCregion.
FirstEnergyactivelyparticipatesintheNERCandRFCstakeholderprocesses,andotherwisemonitorsandmanagesitscompanies
inresponsetotheongoingdevelopment,implementationandenforcementofthereliabilitystandardsimplementedandenforcedby
RFC.
FirstEnergybelievesthatitisincompliancewithallcurrentlyeffectiveandenforceablereliabilitystandards.Nevertheless,inthe
course of operating its extensive electric utility systems and facilities, FirstEnergy occasionally learns of isolated facts or
circumstancesthatcouldbeinterpretedasexcursionsfromthereliabilitystandards.Ifandwhensuchoccurrencesarefound,
FirstEnergydevelopsinformationabouttheoccurrenceanddevelopsaremedialresponsetothespecificcircumstances,includingin
49
appropriatecases“selfreporting”anoccurrencetoRFC.Moreover,itisclearthatNERC,RFCandFERCwillcontinuetorefine
existingreliabilitystandardsaswellastodevelopandadoptnewreliabilitystandards.AnyinabilityonFirstEnergy'sparttocomply
withthereliabilitystandardsforitsbulkelectricsystemcouldresultintheimpositionoffinancialpenalties,andobligationstoupgrade
orbuildtransmissionfacilities,thatcouldhaveamaterialadverseeffectonitsfinancialcondition,resultsofoperationsandcash
flows.
FERCMATTERS
PJMTransmissionRates
PJManditsstakeholdershavebeendebatingthepropermethodtoallocatecostsfornewtransmissionfacilities.WhileFirstEnergy
andotherpartiesadvocateforatraditional"beneficiarypays"(orusagebased)approach,othersadvocatefor“socializing”thecosts
onaloadratiosharebasis,whereeachcustomerinthezonewouldpaybasedonitstotalusageofenergywithinPJM.Thisquestion
hasbeenthesubjectofextensivelitigationbeforeFERCandtheappellatecourts,includingbeforetheSeventhCircuit.OnJune25,
2014,adividedthreejudgepaneloftheSeventhCircuitruledthatFERChadnotquantifiedthebenefitsthatwesternPJMutilities
wouldderivefromcertainnew500kVorhigherlinesandthushadnotadequatelysupporteditsdecisiontosocializethecostsof
theselines.ThemajorityfoundthateasternPJMutilitiesaretheprimarybeneficiariesofthelines,whilewesternPJMutilitiesareonly
incidentalbeneficiaries,andthat,whileincidentalbeneficiariesshouldpaysomeshareofthecostsofthelines,thatshareshouldbe
proportionatetothebenefittheyderivefromthelines,andnotonloadratioshareinPJMasawhole.Thecourtremandedthecaseto
FERC,whichissuedanordersettingtheissueofcostallocationforhearingandsettlementproceedings.Settlementdiscussions
underaFERCappointedsettlementjudgeareongoing.
InaseriesofordersincertainOrderNo.1000dockets,FERCassertedthatthePJMtransmissionownersdonotholdanincumbent
“rightoffirstrefusal”toconstruct,ownandoperatetransmissionprojectswithintheirrespectivefootprintsthatareapprovedaspartof
PJM’sRTEPprocess.FirstEnergyandotherPJMtransmissionownershaveappealedtheserulings,andthequestionofwhether
FirstEnergyandthePJMtransmissionownershavea"rightoffirstrefusal"isnowpendingbeforetheU.S.CourtofAppealsforthe
D.C.CircuitinanappealofFERC'sorderapprovingPJM'sOrderNo.1000compliancefiling.
Theoutcomeoftheseproceedingsandtheirimpact,ifany,onFirstEnergycannotbepredictedatthistime.
RTORealignment
OnJune1,2011,ATSIandtheATSIzonetransferredfromMISOtoPJM.Whilemanyofthemattersinvolvedwiththemovehave
beenresolved,FERCdeniedrecoveryunderATSI'stransmissionrateforcertainchargesthatcollectivelycanbedescribedas"exit
fees"andcertainothertransmissioncostallocationchargestotalingapproximately$78.8millionuntilsuchtimeasATSIsubmitsa
cost/benefitanalysisdemonstratingnetbenefitstocustomersfromthetransfertoPJM.Subsequently,FERCrejectedaproposed
settlementagreementtoresolvetheexitfeeandtransmissioncostallocationissues,statingthatitsactioniswithoutprejudicetoATSI
submittingacost/benefitanalysisdemonstratingthatthebenefitsoftheRTOrealignmentdecisionsoutweightheexitfeeand
transmissioncostallocationcharges.FirstEnergy'srequestforrehearingofFERC'sorderrejectingthesettlementagreementremains
pending.
Separately,thequestionofATSI'sresponsibilityforcertaincostsforthe“MichiganThumb”transmissionprojectcontinuestobe
disputed.PotentialresponsibilityarisesundertheMISOMVPtariff,whichhasbeenlitigatedincomplexproceedingsbeforeFERC
andcertainUnitedStatesappellatecourtsOnOctober29,2015,FERCissuedanorderfindingthatATSIandtheATSIzonedonot
havetopayMISOMVPchargesfortheMichiganThumbtransmissionproject.MISOandtheMISOTOsfiledarequestforrehearing,
whichispendingatFERC.IntheeventofafinalnonappealableorderthatrulesthatATSImustpaythesecharges,ATSIwillseek
recoveryofthesechargesthroughitsformularate.Onarelatedissue,FirstEnergyjoinedcertainotherPJMtransmissionownersina
protestofMISO'sproposaltoallocateMVPcoststoenergytransactionsthatcrossMISO'sbordersintothePJMRegion.OnJanuary
22,2015,FERCissuedanorderestablishingapaperhearingonremandfromtheSeventhCircuitoftheissueofwhetherany
limitationon"exportpricing"forsalesofenergyfromMISOintoPJMisjustifiedinlightofapplicableFERCprecedent.CertainPJM
transmissionowners,includingFirstEnergy,filedaninitialbriefassertingthatFERC’spriorrulingrejectingMISO’sproposedMVP
exportchargeontransactionsintoPJMwascorrectandshouldbereaffirmedonremand.Thebriefsandrepliestheretoarenow
beforeFERCforconsideration.
Inaddition,inaMay31,2011order,FERCruledthatthecostsforcertain"legacyRTEP"transmissionprojectsinPJMapproved
beforeATSIjoinedPJMcouldbechargedtotransmissioncustomersintheATSIzone.Theamounttobepaid,andthequestionof
derivedbenefits,ispendingbeforeFERCasaresultoftheSeventhCircuit'sJune25,2014orderdescribedaboveunderPJM
TransmissionRates.
Theoutcomeoftheproceedingsthataddresstheremainingopenissuesrelatedtocostsforthe"MichiganThumb"transmission
projectand"legacyRTEP"transmissionprojectscannotbepredictedatthistime.
 