Testimony
of
Peter Quinn-Jacobs
Sierra Club DC Chapter
to the
Public Service Commission
Hearing on Rate Case Number FC 1156
Tuesday, September 29, 2020
Thank you, commissioners, for hearing my testimony today about Pepco’s proposed rate increase. My name is Peter Quinn-Jacobs, I am a vice-chair of the Clean Energy Committee for the D.C. Chapter of the Sierra Club, and I am testifying on behalf of the Sierra Club. We ask you to reject Rate Case Number FC1156.
The Sierra Club is the nation's oldest and largest environmental advocacy group. The D.C. Sierra Club is dedicated to protecting and improving the environment in the nation’s capital. We are a grassroots organization with more than 3,000 dues-paying members and more than 10,000 supporters in the District.
Like many people who have logged on today, my life has been thoroughly reshaped by the novel coronavirus. I am currently working between three and ten hours per week, but I have to count myself lucky because so many people have lost their jobs entirely. The other day, a friend told me that the bar where she works is closing its doors and she’ll be out of a job in two weeks.
Right now I’m thinking about everyone else who works at that bar and everyone else across the District struggling to find a clear path through the pandemic, including the workers who do construction on Pepco’s behalf. The best that most of those construction workers earn from Pepco is minimum wage, and a larger and larger portion of contracted-out construction workers on Pepco projects actually make less than the minimum wage. And it’s at this time that Pepco is proposing a price hike. After this rate increase, many of the people who build and maintain our electric grid will not be able to afford the electricity they need to maintain their homes and the wellbeing of their families. Meanwhile, Exelon’s CEO earned over $15 million in salary and benefits last year.
The hard-working people of D.C. deserve better than that. The cost of living has been steadily rising and Pepco has no substantive justification for increasing it further. At a time when its shareholders are already turning a profit on their investments, Pepco wants to ask for more money from District residents, and for what? Its parent company Exelon wants to improve its earnings of course, but Pepco is a regulated company, and because it provides a necessary service, its first duty is to the ratepayers. According to the Office of the People’s Counsel, “Pepco has not demonstrated any long-term benefits to consumers from its MRP,” referring of course to the company’s proposed “multi-year rate plan.” Pepco needs to improve its service if it wants to improve its earnings. The Sierra Club has some recommendations.
First, there’s no indication from the proposed rate plan that Pepco will advance the District’s climate goals. In D.C., our mayor and our city council have recognized the threats that climate change poses to our communities and have set ambitious and necessary benchmarks that we cannot meet without changing the way we use energy. The people of the District deserve a plan from Pepco that demonstrates that the company will work with the government and the community to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Such a plan should include preparations for an increased amount of distributed generation and the electrification of vehicles and buildings. The Commission could start by supporting expanded electric vehicle programs under docket FC1155 and adding electrification to the whole building low-income efficiency program pending in docket FC1148. The Commission could also consider instituting a percentage of income payment program, like the one in the Virginia Clean Economy Act that is being implemented right now.
Second, Pepco should start compensating its workers more equitably. Compared to Washington Gas, whose contractors earn a living wage, receive affordable health insurance, and are eligible for retirement benefits, Pepco is far behind. The jobs that Pepco provides are important to the District and should allow workers to live without resort to public assistance.
Finally, the matters of performance-based regulation and other rate design questions in FC1156 remain unresolved. The FC1156 discussions should inform further inquiry on this subject, and be redirected back to active consideration in FC1130.
In conclusion, Sierra Club urges the Commission to reject Rate Case Number FC1156. It will further burden low-income families during already difficult times, it will not bring us closer to achieving our climate goals, and it will not improve the welfare of the construction workers who need higher-paying jobs. This price hike does not protect consumers, it does not ensure the quality, availability, or reliability of electric service, and it is not in the interest of the public.
Thank you again for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Sierra Club.