Learn more about the different ways OPC-DC Advocates for the community.
OPC’s advocacy role before the DC Public Service Commission is to represent the interests of DC ratepayers by advancing policy positions and proposals that ensure utility service is affordable, safe, adequate, and reliable. Now, with the added responsibility to meet the Climate objectives of the DC government, OPC actively considers the environmental goals of the Council and Mayor in developing fact-based policy positions that yield tangible short- and long-term benefits to consumers and the environment.
OPC asks the Commission to Review Local Utilities Efforts to Obtain Inflation Reduction Act Funds.
At OPC’s request, the Commission has expanded oversight of utility applications to obtain federal funding for “greening the grid” or adopting more forms of renewable carbon-free energy and creating more reliable services. On September 14, 2022, OPC filed a motion to modify reporting requirements under Order No. 21176 to include information related to the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022. The IRA contains over $300 billion for clean-energy and climate programs that could benefit the District of Columbia. Pepco and WGL have the opportunity to acquire financial resources at no cost to ratepayers to fund projects that can assist the city in meeting its climate goals and improving the local energy infrastructure.
Due to OPC’s effective advocacy, the Commission has mandated Pepco and WGL to include in their monthly reports any efforts they undertake to pursue federal funds available under the Inflation Reduction Act.
Specifically, the utility companies reports are required to tell the Commission:
OPC will review and comment on the reports and continue to inform the public of efforts towards meeting its climate goals and improving the energy infrastructure.
Climate change has brought big changes to the weather in the District and these changes are projected to get worse. With hotter summers, increased flooding and more severe storms from climate change District communities will need to be able to “weather” these disruptions. The project of helping communities survive and thrive weather changes is called climate resilience, or climate change adaptation. The District has a series of plans that describe what the District intends to do to become climate resilient:
OPC, as the advocate for gas, electric, and water consumers, is helping to educate District residents about available home or community-based resilience programs. When these programs are funded by ratepayers OPC is advocating for the programs to be cost-effective, just, affordable, and equitable.
Natural gas leaks along Washington Gas’s aging distribution system remain a critical issue for the District of Columbia. Gas leaks present serious threats to safety and affect the reliability of natural gas service. Because methane emissions contribute to climate change, gas leakage from pipes also impedes the District of Columbia’s ability to achieve its climate goals. The Public Service Commission (Commission) and various stakeholders are considering advanced leak detection (ALD) technology to better address this problem. ALD technology refers to new tools that can be employed to detect gas leaks. The hope is that such technology can facilitate more effective and efficient leak detection, which could help repair Washington Gas’s distribution system.
Accordingly, on December 11, 2020, the Commission ordered the creation of the Advanced Leak Detection Pilot Program (ALD Pilot) and directed Washington Gas to administer the program over three years, authorizing a budget of $1.4 million. Through the ALD Pilot, Washington Gas is to utilize ALD technology to identify gas leaks within its distribution system. Based on the results of the ALD Pilot, the Commission has indicated that ALD technology could applied on a larger scale and become a long-term tool. The results of the program will undoubtedly influence the cost of natural gas service moving forward for ratepayers.
The Office of the People’s Counsel (OPC) has concerns as to Washington Gas’s implementation of the ALD Pilot. Washington Gas abruptly switched the kind of ALD technology it originally proposed using. Initially, WGL proposed using mobile ALD technology where the system is vehicle mounted; however, Washington Gas later contracted for services with Satelytics Inc., a company that uses satellite imaging to locate gas leaks. OPC has concerns about the effectiveness of this technology in an urban setting where pipes are located underground beneath concrete and other infrastructure. There is no clear indication why WGL chose to make this switch. In contrast, vehicle mounted ALD technology is used successfully in many urban settings.
In response to concerns raised by OPC and other stakeholders, the Public Service Commission held a technical conference to further examine the ALD Pilot on April 14, 2022, with OPC in attendance. Questions about the efficacy of the program remain, and a second conference is already tentatively scheduled in May.
OPC remains committed to ensuring that appropriate technologies are considered and reasonable metrics are used in measuring the program’s success. Choosing unproven and ineffective methods would defeat the purpose of employing ALD technology and drive-up costs, creating an unfair burden on ratepayers.
In early 2021, the Office of People’s Counsel (“OPC”) received several complaints from Takoma Park residents along Eastern Avenue, NW, who reported suspected damage to their homes as a result of Pepco construction in the area. At least eighteen (18) homeowners have filed complaints against Pepco for damage they believe is being caused by utility construction work.
Consumers expressed concerns about noise, vibrations and foundation damage to homes, as construction contractors work. Many residents had already attempted to resolve the issues directly with Pepco, while others had turned to local news media for help.
Upon learning of the claims, OPC hired a local engineering firm to independently investigate the reports of damage. On October 14, 2021, based upon the findings of the engineering investigation, OPC filed a Petition for Formal Investigation into the prudence of the Pepco’s construction practices with the Public Service Commission (“PSC”). The goal of OPC’s petition is to determine if Pepco is using proper construction practices, to determine if costs should be returned to ratepayers and to make sure there are protocols in place to avoid future damage to homes.
In response to the Petition, Pepco revealed that the construction at issue was a part of the Capital Grid Project and requested the PSC to deny OPC’s Petition. Subsequently, on November 18, 2021, PSC Staff requested data request from Pepco regarding vibration monitoring measures and the damage claims.
On April 7, 2022, after reviewing Pepco’s responses, the PSC declined to initiate an investigation into Pepco’s construction practices. The Commission’s basis for denying OPC’s petition is that 1) the issue of construction practices is primarily under the authority of the District’s Department of Transportation and 2) the Commission’s review of Pepco’s responses showed that Pepco is hiring qualified third-party firms that use industry standard vibration and survey services. The Commission added that a determination of whether costs were imprudently incurred could not be determined until those costs were examined in a rate case.
OPC is monitoring the number of complaints and claims filed with Pepco on a monthly basis and will make the prudency of the company’s construction cost an issue in the rate case Pepco will file in January 2023. Additionally, OPC will keep the public informed of upcoming opportunities for community members to speak out about issues with Pepco’s construction practices.
OPC advocates on behalf of District consumers before the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in telecom matters as a member of the FCC’s Consumer Advisory Committee on behalf of the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates. OPC representatives have led or participated in FCC working groups to develop recommendations to the FCC and Congress on mitigating robocalls, illegal text blocking, consumer broadband labeling, and 9-1-1 fee diversion.
OPC’s Climate Action Section spearheads advocacy on behalf of District gas, electric and water consumers to combat climate change and become resilient to it.
OPC educates and empowers consumers regarding climate change issues facing the District. OPC supports achieving the District’s ambitious goals of reducing carbon emissions—climate change pollution—50% by 2032 and 100% by 2050 in a just, affordable, and resilient manner. Climate change is already harming District residents bringing hotter summers, increased flooding, and more severe storms.
As the statutory representative of District ratepayers OPC advocates for consumer-focused climate change solutions before governmental and private-sector organizations including the District, the Public Service Commission, DC Water, PJM Interconnection LLC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”), the federal government, neighboring states, and regional entities.
Pursuant to the DC Water Consumer Protection Amendment Act of 2018, OPC is the statutory representative of water utility ratepayers and consumers in rulemaking proceedings before the DC Water Board of Directors, DC Water administrative hearings, the local and federal regulatory agencies and courts, and the DC Council. In all matters, OPC advocates for the equitable provision of safe, reliable, and clean water and sewer services at affordable rates in all eight wards of the District. In this regard, over the last few years, OPC has advocated for greater transparency of DC Water operations and decision making, stronger consumer protection rules, enhanced customer assistance programs, minimum or no rate increases, and robust consumer education and outreach.
OPC represents District ratepayers at the federal government and in stakeholder processes impacting the wholesale electric markets and regional transmission planning, advocating for just and reasonable rates and a cost-effective and reliable transition to a low carbon energy future.
OPC is a member of “PJM Interconnection, LLC” (PJM), the grid operator for the Mid-Atlantic, and actively participates in PJM stakeholder meetings, and votes on behalf of District ratepayer’s interests. OPC is also a member of Consumer Advocates of the PJM States, Inc., an organization of consumer advocate offices in the PJM footprint which helps coordinate and leverage consumer representation in the PJM stakeholder process.
OPC regularly litigates before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the federal agency responsible for overseeing the nation’s wholesale electric markets and PJM’s regulator. In addition to formal proceedings before FERC, OPC frequently meets with FERC Commissioners and staff and participates in FERC technical conferences which allows OPC to highlight the policy implications of FERC orders and rulemakings.
OPC has an active appellate process, representing the interests of District ratepayers before various U.S. Courts of Appeal.
OPC’s win before the DC Court of Appeals Pepco Update
During FY 21 and 22, OPC actively litigated a rate case that examined a proposal from Pepco that would change the way in which rate are established and two cost recovery proposals – the environmental cost of the Benning Road facility and cost recovery for two energy efficiency programs.
The Commission approved Pepco’s new ratemaking proposal on a trial basis and approved the two cost recovery projects. The Office sought reconsideration of all three issues. The Commission denied OPC’s request for reconsideration. OPC then appealed the two cost recovery proposals to the DC Court of Appeals.
The DC Court of Appeals ruled in favor of OPC on the two cost recovery projects. The Court of Appeals agreed with OPC that there was a longstanding agreement in place to prohibit Pepco from recovering the costs for environmental damage at Pepco’s Benning Road facility.
The Court of Appeals also agreed with OPC that Pepco did not meet the legal requirements to recover the costs of a number of energy efficiency programs. The Court’s decision required the Commission to correct the agency’s order.This win at the Court of Appeals was significant for OPC and consumers because it made it clear to the Commission that it must adhere to the law before allowing costs to be recovered from consumers.
U.S. Court of Appeals Hears Important Case Regarding Transmission Planning
One of the fastest rising parts of any consumer’s electric bill is the cost of transmission, that is the cost of moving power from where it is generated to where it is used, including homes and businesses in the District. One reason for those increased costs is the need to replace older transmission facilities that have reached the end of their service life.
On November 8th, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia heard a case regarding how planning for replacement projects should occur, and OPC was one of the principal parties arguing for more regional, cost-effective planning. Back in 2020 a group of stakeholders including OPC, other consumer advocates, state commissions, public power entities and merchant transmission developers developed a process in which PJM, the regional grid planner, would decide what replacement, if any, should be built when a facility is retired. OPC believes that PJM, as the regional planner, is in the best position to determine what replacement facilities should be built, ensure that costs are fairly allocated, and employ a competitive planning process to help ensure that the right project is built for the right price.
The transmission owners offered a competing proposal that would continue to allow them to self-approve the building of replacement projects. This means that individual transmission owners would get to determine what they build (and at what cost) and the regional planner, as well as consumer voices, would be absent from the review of these projects.
Unfortunately, when these two competing visions of transmission planning were brought to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the federal regulator chose the transmission owner proposal. OPC believes that this decision was based on neither the facts nor the law and, along with other parties, appealed it. A decision from the court is expected early next year.
Required fields are marked with a star (*) symbol
(202) 727-3071