Events Calendar
In This Section
Most Read Stories
Suspect arrested in killing of soldier in Akron
Passers-by call police over topless gardener
Tallmadge man dies after motorcycle crash
Wadsworth police chief not interested in desk job
Teen accused of drinking, dancing topless in club
Akron police arrest suspect in Iraq war veteran's killing
Blogs:
Akron Docs in Haiti:
Almost home
First Bell - On Education:
21st Century Skills and Akron’s new middle school
Pets:
Lost Mini Schnauzer around Cascade Valley Park
The Heldenfiles:
Fess Parker, R.I.P.
Akron Zips:
Is it time to go after transfers?
Tribe Matters:
Wood sidelined at least six weeks
Cleveland Browns:
Yates latest to re-sign
Balanced Ledger:
How times have changed?
Kent State Sports:
Kent State @ Illinois – News, Notes & Links
Cleveland Cavaliers:
Gameblog: Cavs at Chicago Bulls (Green Mascot and All)
Buckeye Blogging:
Bucks High Seed – Turner High Praise
Varsity Letters:
Jackson advances to Division I state semifinal
All Da King's Men:
ObamaCare To Reduce Premiums By 3000% ?
Blog of Mass Destruction:
The Bigotry Of The Baggers
Akron Law Café:
More on Shaming Corporate Criminals
Car Chase:
2010 CONCOURS SEASON IS UPON US
Let's Talk Real Estate:
Deals in Miami?!.
Sound Check:
Willie Nelson & Family coming to the Akron Civic Theatre May 11
See Jane Style:
Who Wore What – The Oscars
HRLite House:
Horses of Courses
Akron Gamer:
Video: Gamers expected to 'reach' for new 'Halo'
FirstEnergy would give vouchers for customers to decide for themselves
By Dennis J. Willard
Beacon Journal Columbus Bureau
Published on Thursday, Oct 29, 2009
COLUMBUS: FirstEnergy wants to drop a controversial mandatory program to charge customers $21.45 to deliver two compact fluorescent light bulbs to their homes and instead offer vouchers that would give consumers a choice to opt in or not.
Art Korkosz, representing the utility, outlined the new proposal to begin distributing 3.75 million energy-efficient light bulbs to reduce electric bills and help the company meet conservation benchmarks during a hearing Wednesday before the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio.
Under an electric reregulation bill passed in 2008, utilities in Ohio are required to reduce energy usage by .03 percent this year and by 22 percent in 2025.
Commissioners offered five groups, including the Ohio consumers' counsel, an opportunity to appear before the board to discuss the negative reaction to FirstEnergy's mandatory program.
In large part, the hearing was a venting session for all parties involved, and following the therapy, there was an agreement for the sides to come together quickly to figure out a way to screw in 3.75 million light bulbs.
Korkosz said FirstEnergy's new approach would be to create a volunteer voucher program, ''thus accommodating the wishes of customers who do not want to receive the bulbs.''
The voucher program would offer six energy-efficient light bulbs to customers who requested them, and offer the
same to consumers who contact the utility through a call center on the Web.
Light bulbs would also be offered to new residential customer when they sign up for service, and the compact fluorescent lights (CFLs) would be made available to consumers through public assistance agencies in the utility's service territory.
''It is essential that the commission recognize that the new costs of this program will be higher,'' Korkosz warned the board.
The utility wants the commission to ensure the company can recover lost revenues related to the energy-efficient program.
He also asked the commission to waive FirstEnergy's energy-efficient benchmarks for 2009.
''The time required for implementation of, and customer response to, such a new voucher program will not allow for its impact on customer usage to contribute to a 2009 benchmark,'' Korkosz said.
Solution possible
Janine Migden-Ostrander, the consumers' counsel, said although the sides have been at odds for months, and her organization never signed off on the mandatory door-to-door plan, she believes a solution can be reached swiftly.
Migden-Ostrander was criticized by several PUCO members for not clearly outlining her organization's problems with FirstEnergy's proposal, which led the board erroneously to believe there was an agreement among the utility, the OCC and two other groups.
''We did what we could to mitigate damages to customers,'' Migden-Ostrander told the board.
Cheryl Roberto, a board member, said she read every piece of paper in the case docket before the PUCO and found no evidence of a number of issues raised by the consumers' counsel once the public reacted negatively to FirstEnergy's initial plan.
Praiseworthy goals
Roberto offered a sentiment echoed by a number of her fellow board members: The goal of the light bulb program is laudable because eventually it would lead to lower bills for consumers and less energy consumption long-term that could prevent FirstEnergy from building an expensive new power plant to meet increased demand.
After the hearing, Migden-Ostrander said she would support a temporary waiver for FirstEnergy for the 2009 benchmarks as long as the utility made those up in the next two years.
Dylan Sullivan, an energy advocate in the Natural Resources Defense Council's (NRDC) midwest office, said electric utilities in southern Ohio have implemented CFL programs without major problems.
''It is unfortunate that FirstEnergy has consistently ignored the recommendations of stakeholders who have relevant experience and interest in making energy-saving opportunities available and affordable to customers,'' Sullivan said.
Sullivan said two-thirds of the cost of FirstEnergy's program is designed to compensate the utility for lost revenue with only one-third going to purchasing and distributing the light bulbs.
Recouping losses
The NRDC asked the PUCO board to not allow First-Energy to recover the lost revenue.
The lost-revenue charge pertains only to FirstEnergy's fixed costs for maintaining its transmission system, which represent about 20 percent of monthly electric bills. If the conservation program results in lower electric consumption and lower bills, FirstEnergy would not receive the revenue deemed necessary to maintain the transmission system.
Sullivan's organization would also like to see 1 million light bulbs distributed through community action agencies while letting FirstEnergy customers purchase up to 10 bulbs each at $1.50 per bulb.
The utility should also find ways to place the remaining light bulbs in retail outlets.
Migden-Ostrander said her group does not object to FirstEnergy recovering true lost revenue, but she wants to examine the costs involved with the utility's new proposal.
Another idea floated during the lengthy and sometimes contentious meeting was for a third-party administrator to be assigned to work out difference with the cooperative member groups.
Dennis J. Willard can be reached at 614-224-1613 or dwillard@thebeaconjournal.com.
COLUMBUS: FirstEnergy wants to drop a controversial mandatory program to charge customers $21.45 to deliver two compact fluorescent light bulbs to their homes and instead offer vouchers that would give consumers a choice to opt in or not.
Get the full article here.
Comments
Click here to post your comments
Posted 04:30 AM, 10/29/2009
I guess in these days of falling prices and low retail profit margins, First Energy thinks they should be immune. Who wants to pay over $10.00 for a CFL? A lot of folks have suffered from this economy already. I have had cfls in my home for about 5 years now. I'm surprised they haven't raised my bill for the loss of revenue. These are supposed to SAVE me money, not cost more.Also, there's got to be a cheaper way to distribute them than paying two guys to do it door to door.
Posted 07:13 AM, 10/29/2009
Seems to me when FE got caught trying to fleece the public, they now want to back off. Nice marketing idea. My 7 year old grand daughter could do better than that.
Akron, OH
Posted 07:40 AM, 10/29/2009
I already have these bulbs in every light fixture in my house. Don't need the power co to bring me more and charge me an arm and a leg for them.
Fairlawn, OH
Posted 02:23 PM, 10/29/2009
It’s always nice to see how uninformed people can be. Just because the program “costs” $20 and you only receive 2 light bulbs hardly means the light bulbs each cost $10 dollars. In your electric bill you pay a “distribution cost” which theoretically pays for the lines delivering power to your house. For collecting purposes, that distribution cost is based on the electricity you use. Unfortunately, the cost to keep those lines in service doesn’t magically decrease just because people are using less electricity. If the cost to keep the lines in service stays the same, and everyone uses less electricity, then your distribution costs have to go up in order to have enough money to keep the lines in service (cost for distribution lines/electricity used=distribution rates). So most of that $20 you pay over three years is a result of the need to increase distribution rates to keep the lines in service. I have no desire to pay higher distribution rates, but it’s better than allowing the electricity grid to fall apart.
It’s the same as when Dominion increases your delivery charge in order to have the money to put in new pipes. The rates go up because the cost of delivering the product to your house has increased. It doesn’t mean you’re paying more for the actual gas or electricity. So being efficient in your usage still saves you money on your actual gas or electricity consumption.
Fairlawn, OH
Posted 02:24 PM, 10/29/2009
By no means do I think delivering CFLs to people’s doors is a good idea though. I don’t think coupons are a good idea for that matter either, but that’s because I don’t think the government should be telling us we have to decrease our usage. If people want to use more that should be their business, while if people want to consume less they should be able to choose to do so because that’s what they want, not because the bureaucrats are looking over your shoulder saying you’re only allowed to have your lights on between the hours of 8pm and 10pm. I would assume that those who already have CFLs in their house do so because they help you save money. That’s why I use them, not because the government told me I have to. What is happening to our freedom of choice? Those in government that burdened us with this bill should be ashamed of themselves.
clinton, oh
Posted 07:19 PM, 10/29/2009
Why dont they just discontinue the whole thing
Its pure nonsense anyway
I am tired of hearing about all this energy conserving save the earth GREEN BS
Even the States,corporations and utilities are sucking up to the most dangerous United States Congress this country has ever seated!!
clinton, oh
Posted 05:42 AM, 10/30/2009
Send the D A M bulbs to Obama and Al Gore along with the bill
The Ignorant Hypocrites can use them in their house's
Akronicity, OH
Posted 10:49 AM, 10/30/2009
Love the headline...just be careful picking up the pieces...I hear it's tricky to clean up after those light bulbs!
