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.
48
EachofthePennsylvaniaCompaniescurrentlyofferdistributionratesundertheirrespectiveJointPetitionsforSettlementapproved
onApril9,2015bythePPUC,which,amongotherthings,providedforatotalincreaseinannualrevenuesforallPennsylvania
Companiesof$292.8million,($89.3millionforME,$90.8millionforPN,$15.9millionforPennand$96.8millionforWP),including
the recovery of $87.7 million of additional annual operating expenses, including costs associated with service reliability
enhancementstothedistributionsystem,amortizationofdeferredstormcostsandtheremainingnetbookvalueoflegacymeters,
assistanceforprovidingservicetolowincomecustomers,andthecreationofastormreserveforeachutility.Additionally,the
approvedsettlementsincludecommitmentstomeetcertainwaittimesforcallcentersandservicereliabilitystandards.Thenewrates
wereeffectiveMay3,2015.
OnJuly16,2013,thePPUC'sBureauofAuditsinitiatedafocusedmanagementandoperationsauditofthePennsylvaniaCompanies
asrequiredeveryeightyearsbystatute.ThePPUCissuedareportonitsfindingsandrecommendationsonFebruary12,2015,at
whichtimethePennsylvaniaCompanies'associatedimplementationplanwasalsomadepublic.InanorderissuedonMarch30,
2015,thePennsylvaniaCompaniesweredirectedtodevelopandfilebyMay29,2015arevisedimplementationplanregarding
certainoftheoperationaltopicsaddressedinthereport,includingaddressingcertainreliabilitymatters.ThePennsylvaniaCompanies
filedtheirrevisedimplementationplanincompliancewiththisorder.Afinalorderadoptingtheplan,asrevised,wasenteredon
November5,2015.ThecostofcomplianceforthePennsylvaniaCompaniesiscurrentlyexpectedtorangefromapproximately$200
millionto$230million.
OnJune19,2015,MEandPN,alongwithJCP&L,FETandMAITmadefilingswithFERC,theNJBPU,andthePPUCrequesting
authorizationforJCP&L,PNandMEtocontributetheirtransmissionassetstoMAIT,anewtransmissiononlysubsidiaryofFET.
EvidentiaryhearingsarescheduledtocommencebeforethePPUConFebruary29,2016.AfinaldecisionfromthePPUCisexpected
bymid2016.SeeTransferofTransmissionAssetstoMAITinFERCMattersbelowforfurtherdiscussionofthistransaction.
WESTVIRGINIA
MPandPEcurrentlyoperateunderaJointStipulationandAgreementofSettlementapprovedbytheWVPSConFebruary3,2015,
thatprovidedfor:a$15millionincreaseinannualbaseraterevenueseffectiveFebruary25,2015theimplementationofaVegetation
ManagementSurchargetorecoverallcostsrelatedtobothnewandexistingvegetationmaintenanceprogramsauthoritytoestablish
aregulatoryassetforMATSinvestmentsplacedintoservicein2016and2017authoritytodefer,amortizeandrecoveroverafive
yearperiodthroughbaseratesapproximately$46millionofstormrestorationcostsandeliminationoftheTTSforcostsassociated
withMP'sacquisitionoftheHarrisonplantinOctober2013andmovementofthosecostsintobaserates.
OnAugust14,2015,MPandPEfiledtheirannualENECcasewiththeWVPSCproposinganapproximate$165.1millionannual
increaseinrateseffectiveJanuary1,2016orbefore,whichwouldbea12.5%overallincreaseoverexistingrates.Theoriginal
proposedincreasewascomprisedofa$97millionunderrecoveredbalanceasofJune30,2015,aprojected$23.7millionunder
recoveryforthe2016calendaryear,andanactualunderrecoveredbalancefromMPandPE'sTTSforHarrisonPowerStationof
$44.4million.OnSeptember10,2015,MPandPEfiledanamendmentaddressingtheresultsoftherecentPJMTransitional
AuctionsforCapacityPerformance,whichresultedinanetdecreaseof$20.6millionfromtheinitialrequestedincreaseto$144.5
million.Asettlementwasreachedamongallthepartiesincreasingrevenues$96.9millionanddeferringothercostsforrecoveryinto
2017. ThesettlementwaspresentedtotheWVPSConNovember19,2015andafinalorderapprovingthesettlementwithout
changeswasissuedonDecember22,2015,withrateseffectiveonJanuary1,2016.
OnAugust31,2015,MPandPEfiledwiththeWVPSCtheirbiennialpetitionforreconciliationoftheVegetationManagement
ProgramSurchargeandregularreviewoftheprogramproposinganapproximate$37.7millionannualincreaseinratesoveratwo
yearperiod,whichisa2.8%overallincreaseoverexistingrates.Theproposedincreasewascomprisedofa$2.1millionunder
recoveredbalanceasofJune30,2015,aprojected$23.9millioninunderrecoveryforthe2016/2017rateeffectiveperiod,and
recoveryofpreviouslyauthorizeddeferredvegetationmanagementcostsfromApril14,2014throughFebruary24,2015inthe
amountof$49.9million. Asettlementwasreachedamongallthepartiesincreasingrevenues$36.7millionannuallyforthe2016
2017twoyearraterecoveryperiod,andwaspresentedtotheWVPSConNovember19,2015.Afinalorderapprovingthesettlement
withoutchangeswasissuedonDecember21,2015,withrateseffectiveonJanuary1,2016.
RELIABILITYMATTERS
Federallyenforceablemandatoryreliabilitystandardsapplytothebulkelectricsystemandimposecertainoperating,recordkeeping
andreportingrequirementsontheUtilities,FES,AESupply,FG,FENOC,NG,ATSIandTrAIL.NERCistheEROdesignatedby
FERCtoestablishandenforcethesereliabilitystandards,althoughNERChasdelegateddaytodayimplementationandenforcement
ofthesereliabilitystandardstoeightregionalentities,includingRFC.AllofFirstEnergy'sfacilitiesarelocatedwithintheRFCregion.
FirstEnergyactivelyparticipatesintheNERCandRFCstakeholderprocesses,andotherwisemonitorsandmanagesitscompanies
inresponsetotheongoingdevelopment,implementationandenforcementofthereliabilitystandardsimplementedandenforcedby
RFC.
FirstEnergybelievesthatitisincompliancewithallcurrentlyeffectiveandenforceablereliabilitystandards.Nevertheless,inthe
course of operating its extensive electric utility systems and facilities, FirstEnergy occasionally learns of isolated facts or
circumstancesthatcouldbeinterpretedasexcursionsfromthereliabilitystandards.Ifandwhensuchoccurrencesarefound,
FirstEnergydevelopsinformationabouttheoccurrenceanddevelopsaremedialresponsetothespecificcircumstances,includingin
49
appropriatecases“selfreporting”anoccurrencetoRFC.Moreover,itisclearthatNERC,RFCandFERCwillcontinuetorefine
existingreliabilitystandardsaswellastodevelopandadoptnewreliabilitystandards.AnyinabilityonFirstEnergy'sparttocomply
withthereliabilitystandardsforitsbulkelectricsystemcouldresultintheimpositionoffinancialpenalties,andobligationstoupgrade
orbuildtransmissionfacilities,thatcouldhaveamaterialadverseeffectonitsfinancialcondition,resultsofoperationsandcash
flows.
FERCMATTERS
PJMTransmissionRates
PJManditsstakeholdershavebeendebatingthepropermethodtoallocatecostsfornewtransmissionfacilities.WhileFirstEnergy
andotherpartiesadvocateforatraditional"beneficiarypays"(orusagebased)approach,othersadvocatefor“socializing”thecosts
onaloadratiosharebasis,whereeachcustomerinthezonewouldpaybasedonitstotalusageofenergywithinPJM.Thisquestion
hasbeenthesubjectofextensivelitigationbeforeFERCandtheappellatecourts,includingbeforetheSeventhCircuit.OnJune25,
2014,adividedthreejudgepaneloftheSeventhCircuitruledthatFERChadnotquantifiedthebenefitsthatwesternPJMutilities
wouldderivefromcertainnew500kVorhigherlinesandthushadnotadequatelysupporteditsdecisiontosocializethecostsof
theselines.ThemajorityfoundthateasternPJMutilitiesaretheprimarybeneficiariesofthelines,whilewesternPJMutilitiesareonly
incidentalbeneficiaries,andthat,whileincidentalbeneficiariesshouldpaysomeshareofthecostsofthelines,thatshareshouldbe
proportionatetothebenefittheyderivefromthelines,andnotonloadratioshareinPJMasawhole.Thecourtremandedthecaseto
FERC,whichissuedanordersettingtheissueofcostallocationforhearingandsettlementproceedings.Settlementdiscussions
underaFERCappointedsettlementjudgeareongoing.
InaseriesofordersincertainOrderNo.1000dockets,FERCassertedthatthePJMtransmissionownersdonotholdanincumbent
“rightoffirstrefusal”toconstruct,ownandoperatetransmissionprojectswithintheirrespectivefootprintsthatareapprovedaspartof
PJM’sRTEPprocess.FirstEnergyandotherPJMtransmissionownershaveappealedtheserulings,andthequestionofwhether
FirstEnergyandthePJMtransmissionownershavea"rightoffirstrefusal"isnowpendingbeforetheU.S.CourtofAppealsforthe
D.C.CircuitinanappealofFERC'sorderapprovingPJM'sOrderNo.1000compliancefiling.
Theoutcomeoftheseproceedingsandtheirimpact,ifany,onFirstEnergycannotbepredictedatthistime.
RTORealignment
OnJune1,2011,ATSIandtheATSIzonetransferredfromMISOtoPJM.Whilemanyofthemattersinvolvedwiththemovehave
beenresolved,FERCdeniedrecoveryunderATSI'stransmissionrateforcertainchargesthatcollectivelycanbedescribedas"exit
fees"andcertainothertransmissioncostallocationchargestotalingapproximately$78.8millionuntilsuchtimeasATSIsubmitsa
cost/benefitanalysisdemonstratingnetbenefitstocustomersfromthetransfertoPJM.Subsequently,FERCrejectedaproposed
settlementagreementtoresolvetheexitfeeandtransmissioncostallocationissues,statingthatitsactioniswithoutprejudicetoATSI
submittingacost/benefitanalysisdemonstratingthatthebenefitsoftheRTOrealignmentdecisionsoutweightheexitfeeand
transmissioncostallocationcharges.FirstEnergy'srequestforrehearingofFERC'sorderrejectingthesettlementagreementremains
pending.
Separately,thequestionofATSI'sresponsibilityforcertaincostsforthe“MichiganThumb”transmissionprojectcontinuestobe
disputed.PotentialresponsibilityarisesundertheMISOMVPtariff,whichhasbeenlitigatedincomplexproceedingsbeforeFERC
andcertainUnitedStatesappellatecourtsOnOctober29,2015,FERCissuedanorderfindingthatATSIandtheATSIzonedonot
havetopayMISOMVPchargesfortheMichiganThumbtransmissionproject.MISOandtheMISOTOsfiledarequestforrehearing,
whichispendingatFERC.IntheeventofafinalnonappealableorderthatrulesthatATSImustpaythesecharges,ATSIwillseek
recoveryofthesechargesthroughitsformularate.Onarelatedissue,FirstEnergyjoinedcertainotherPJMtransmissionownersina
protestofMISO'sproposaltoallocateMVPcoststoenergytransactionsthatcrossMISO'sbordersintothePJMRegion.OnJanuary
22,2015,FERCissuedanorderestablishingapaperhearingonremandfromtheSeventhCircuitoftheissueofwhetherany
limitationon"exportpricing"forsalesofenergyfromMISOintoPJMisjustifiedinlightofapplicableFERCprecedent.CertainPJM
transmissionowners,includingFirstEnergy,filedaninitialbriefassertingthatFERC’spriorrulingrejectingMISO’sproposedMVP
exportchargeontransactionsintoPJMwascorrectandshouldbereaffirmedonremand.Thebriefsandrepliestheretoarenow
beforeFERCforconsideration.
Inaddition,inaMay31,2011order,FERCruledthatthecostsforcertain"legacyRTEP"transmissionprojectsinPJMapproved
beforeATSIjoinedPJMcouldbechargedtotransmissioncustomersintheATSIzone.Theamounttobepaid,andthequestionof
derivedbenefits,ispendingbeforeFERCasaresultoftheSeventhCircuit'sJune25,2014orderdescribedaboveunderPJM
TransmissionRates.
Theoutcomeoftheproceedingsthataddresstheremainingopenissuesrelatedtocostsforthe"MichiganThumb"transmission
projectand"legacyRTEP"transmissionprojectscannotbepredictedatthistime.